When I heard about Move-On.org's ad in the New York Times, the first thing I thought was, “Damn, the New York Times still has advertisers?” The second thing I thought of was whether these pants made me look fat because, let's face it, no matter how you look at it naked weighs less. The third through fifty seventh things I thought of, post ad, involved various matters of import ranging from toenail clippings to the way economic globalization is effecting Inuit investment bankers. But, as much as I tried to ignore it, people kept on blathering on as if there weren't wars or fires or naked and/or incarcerated celebrities to cover (so to speak). So I finally looked at the ad and read the headline: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”
Now, normally I would be all “Oh baby, is it ON!” But, really. “General Betray Us?” More like General Lame Warping of Name Us! Hell, even “General Petraeus? More Like General SHUT UP!” would have been better.
“But Dylan!” you say, with a suggestive wink and perhaps a five dollar bill in your outstretched hand, “you generally critique systems, not individuals! What makes you qualified to judge what is and is not lame slandering of some dude who kills stuff for a living?” Well, reader, you're right. I'm generally not in the habit of getting all up in somebody's grill. But enough is enough. Although I usually hate the game, I am by no means above hateage of the player. And so I present to you some onerous and erroneous alternatives at the expense of those contemptible, despicable power-hungry charlatans we call “Presidential Candidates.”
1. “John McCain: He's Old, So You Don't Have To!” Are you tired of the perpetual march of time? As your years advance, do you worry that your life is a shallow excuse for the ideals you once harbored as an idealistic youth? Are you increasingly protective of your lawn against invading “punk kid” forces? Well, turn that wrinkly frown upside down! Yes, John McCain is old. At last count, I'm pretty sure he was one hundred and seventeen, give or take. And his endorsements include William McKinley, Thomas Jefferson, and Methusaleh. If he can run (well, let's not kid ourselves, shuffle) for President, there's all sorts of hope for you! It's name is John McCain. And it doesn't wear a diaper. (Yet.)
2. "Ron Paul or Ron Small Chance of Winning!" Ron Paul has about as much chance of being President as he has of silently eliminating the seventeen or so candidates that are also in the race, with a margin of error of Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, and Ralph Nader just to make sure. Sure, he'd probably be decent enough, but once you go libertarian, well, you've lost something vitally important. Like... YOUR MIND!!?!1!
3. "Mike Huckabee: Why Darwin Was Wrong." I mean, we give a lot of thought to how shameful it is to be descended from monkeys (throwing poo was so 90s), but, when it comes to Mike Huckabee, it's the apes who are ashamed. And... well... I don't really have anything else. Umm. He used to be really fat. Like, your momma fat. But, unlike her, he got over it.
4. “Hillary Clinton is a woman.” True story! I know, I was confused too. But that's what wikipedia says. I mean, it's not the most trustworthy source, but it's at least disconcerting. Is that sort of thing even allowed? Has someone checked the Constitution? I'm just saying.
5. “Rudy Giuliani.” Oh God, where?! Keep it away, keep it away! I could have sworn this place was sprayed just last week...
6. “Dennis Kucinich? More like Dennis Kucinich!” Seriously. It's like Santa didn't pay him enough so he went on strike and got elected mayor of Cleveland by accident. Talk about your toy recall...
And, of course, much more hate in the weeks to come. But then, it wouldn't an editorial section without it.
2 comments:
Here's a question for you: How come Ron Paul, with only grassroots support can reach 7-8%* in the Gallup polls on a shoestring budget, and is said that he has no chance of winning, while Mitt Romney, who's spent tens of millions, is also polling at 7-8%, yet is considered a "top-tier" candidate?
*I know Gallup has polled Ron Paul at 4% among mainstream Republicans. Since he also has plenty of support from ex-Democrats, Independents, and ex-Apathetic voters, I think it's safe to assume Ron Paul's polling about the same as Romney. Can't wait 'till we have more money than McCain on hand, and people say we'll be "spamming" donations.
Obviously my column isn't meant to be taken seriously, but I don't trust polls of most any kind. Particularly when you say he's "polling at 7-8%" without indicating if that's among Republican candidates, general field, nationwide, etc.
That aside, he's attractive as an anti-establishment candidate, but that can only take him so far. I personally don't think most people would like his policies once they knew what they were. That's not to say I dislike him or anything, but he's a fringe candidate in more senses than just poll numbers.
Post a Comment