Thursday, May 25, 2006

Portraits In Rage: Behold, A Pale Horse

From the National Republican Congressional Committee website:

Howard Dean. Hillary Clinton. Ted Kennedy. Nancy Pelosi.

The radical, left-wing Democrats are fighting desperately to gain control of Congress this November. They want nothing more than to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House in 2006 and Hillary Clinton President in 2008.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is rallying Republicans to join them today to stop the Democrats' momentum. A Democratic controlled Congress means higher taxes, fewer jobs and weak national security. Americans deserve lawmakers who
will represent their values in Washington.
I want Hillary Clinton in the White House like I want to eat nothing but living maggots for the rest of my life. Which is to say, not at all.

But, I mean, come ON. The four horsemen of the apocalypse? Not only is that ridiculously inflationary rhetoric, it also doesn't make much sense. Aren't the Four Horsemen spiritual embodiments of God's will? Don't the Republicans want God on their side?

And since one of the four horsemen is "War," shouldn't that, like, appeal to a lot of those Homeland Security Moms?

And who's who? Is Howard Dean supposed to be "Death?" "Famine?" Pestilence?"

And will there be action figures? Personally, I'd like to see a Nancy Pelosi doll wrapped in white, packaged together with a 'crop-wasting' kung fu grip feature.

(link courtesy of oliverwillis)


At 9:43 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

I'm bettign Alton Brown could make maggots some good eats, but nothing could make Hillary look good unless by some bit of black magic she were running against someone with the last name of Bush. That happens and the fam and I are headed for the great white north.

At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Canada? Hmm, never though of it as republican country. Is very well like overseas.

At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

or well "liked" rather...apologies

At 5:21 PM, Anonymous Hattie said...

Hillary is a hate magnet. I don't think she's any better or worse than the average pol, but she's a woman reaching for power, ie, fair game.Look at the truly ghastly Bush women, Laura in particular, who have people slobber all over them.
I dislike Hillary for schmoozing with the Bushes and that sort of thing.
I'd really like to see Gore run, and win, of course.

At 1:28 PM, Blogger codemorse said...


I'm not a 'Hilary Hater,' but I don't approve of her making a run for the Presidency, and none of my reasons include her gender.

We're long-overdue a female Commander In Chief, I just feel that the first woman President should not be a Clinton. Most importantly, it further cements the exclusionary, quasi-monarchy that is the Presidential candidacy even further. Since I've been alive, every Presidential election has contained either a Bush or a Clinton, and that's inappropriate for a democracy.

Secondly, while Hilary's certainly no better or worse than many politicians, she's certainly no better than many of the able, capable women currently serving in government. She's an almost intentionally-divisive figure, and by putting her front and center, the democrats are figuratively and repeatedly shooting themselves in the feet.

Let's see a woman candidate who doesn't instantly divide the populace with pre-determined opinions on her lifestyle, her criminality, and her personality.

Let's nominate a woman who has a shot at uniting the increasingly-fragmented landscape of American politics.

Gore's an intelligent, capable candidate, but is, again, too divisive, in my humble-and-cynical opinion.

Now, Barack Obama...There's a man who'd garner votes across the board. Of course, he's supposedly too green. But then, maybe we don't need a candidate already decades-entrenched in the beltway.


Post a Comment

<< Home