, , , ,

I’m beginning to wonder that shooting yourself in the foot must feel good. Otherwise, why are so many Regooflicans doing it with abandon? If it hurts as much as I suspect it must, then there is only one other alternative–God actively jerks chains and changes the game. I must tell you, that I don’t believe in the latter-it just screws up my entire theological mindset to believe that the game is rigged.

So, it must feel good. Of what am I speaking you ask?


See I pride myself on a certain sense of what is logical. You know. You put your finger on a hot stove and “yikes that sucker is HOT.” You avoid similar finger touching in the future. Logical? Of course.

So, let’s say that you are in a very contested and tight race for a political seat. You are facing a very tough challenger, you are pretty much tied in the polls, or even worse, you are behind. Every vote counts. It is long since time when you had to appeal to your “base” wherever they may sit on the sane<———————>insane scale, and with ReStuplicans, it’s pretty much —————————>way over here. You are appealing to the tiny group of “undecided” voters who may be everything from insane to sane but have more interesting things to do than listen to candidates up until the last couple of weeks when they are gonna “decide.”

So, given that these people are “relatively” (and I use the term with a certain amount of rolling of my eyes) logical and sane, because after all, worrying about bills, whether Susie needs braces or Bobby will make the soccer team, not to say the least of which dish to take to the family reunion next Saturday, you would want, as a candidate, to say rather intelligent, and BENIGN things, doncha think?  (I know, I just love to let sentences go on for ever since it’s so Marcel Proust and so very much against all advice as to how to write, but I have now digressed haven’t I?)

Anyway, my point was, shouldn’t you not say stupid and controversial things that would be offensive to huge segments of the population you are trying to convince to give you another go round the old DC circuit? Huh?

Well, such is not apparently the case, and I can assume safely I think that the “So you want to be re-elected Mr/Mrs/Ms Republican” video doesn’t stress acting sensible in the last few weeks before the big voting thing.

Cases in point, or case in points as the case may be.

Todd, my man who fancies himself a medical gynecologist, of “legitimate rape” fame, is in the fight of his life. Abandoned, then embraced by principle-lacking Rethuglicans, Akin finds himself behind in the polls in a race that literally couldn’t be lost before his foot in mouth disease moment.

So you might think, that he just might. . .just might try to make “normal” remarks heading toward the vote day? No, not our Toddy. He went off and called Ms. McCaskill, “unladylike” in her debate manner.

Now some folks thought that just plain funny of old 18th-century livin’ Toddy, but others nodded that he was a misogynist, paternalistic, asswipe.

And some of that latter group is going to vote.

So, not to be associated with anything logical, Toddlikins ups the ante. Now he has referred to Ms. McCaskill as having the mannerisms of a dog.

Now dogs are fine creatures as so many of us know. They are loyal and loving, and aim to please, but they are after all, dogs–who have some limitations on their ability to reason (I keep telling Diego to stop walking through the dirt I’ve just swept into a puddle while I run for the dustpan, but he just finds that little puddle of dirt wonderfully interesting so he stands in it and sniffs, puffing the dust motes into the air–digression again, I know).

So my achin’ Akin referred to the Senator as someone who is kinda dumb and just does what the DNC tells her to do. But you see, dog is not so far from female dog, and female dog is B I O T C H, and we are back to that misogynist paternalistic thing again.

Todd, what are you thinkin’ there boy? You got no more feet to shoot!

Cases in point number dos ( just a little Spanish practice)

My beloved (are you kidding me?) Steve King from Iowa is also in a race for his life with Christie Vilsack, the wife of the former Governor of Iowa and present Secretary of Agriculture, you know, Christie.

Now King is from the arguably most conservative area in all of Iowa, but just because they are only a few points up from being classified as intellectually challenged out there in the western section of the state, don’t mean the entire congressional district is competing to challenge chimpanzees for the lower SAT scores.

Mrs. Vilsack claimed that King was against the sale of contraception to ANYONE. And his answer was?

He took us on a long and detailed explanation of why Griswold v. Connecticut (which struck down a state law making it illegal to buy contraception) was wrongly decided. He explained that the SCOTUS based the decision on a “freedom of privacy” which doesn’t exist in the Constitution. I could explain all this but you probably don’t care, so I won’t.

He is then asked, does he personally find himself against the sale and use of contraception by people, married, or otherwise. Does he say, “hey of course not, that would be. . .INSANE!”????

No, he says, “I have not taken a position on that issue.”

Well, doncha think you should moron? And don’t you think you should say either I am of course in favor of contraception or I’m a Catholic who follows the teaching of my church in my own personal life, but I don’t presume to tell others who aren’t Catholic and find contraception okay, that they are wrong?

Isn’t that would you would say?

Tell me that is what you would say?

Have I lost my mind?

Do these people want to lose?

All I can say is that I sure hope so.  It must be a disease. It is called Tea-Party-Dementia. I hope they all get it.

As the President said, “we have a cure for that, it’s a covered under Obamacare as a pre-existing condition.”

What do you say?