Faux argument

"Republicans have given us wage and price controls under Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, The K-Street Project, and the Bush deficit."
-- Ron Chusid

Now, which of these policies am I accused of endorsing? I was 14 when Nixon resigned from office and, in point of fact, was raised a Democrat. So I can't be blamed for price controls, which I do not advocate.

Exactly what the Cheney Energy Task Force did to deserve Chusid's demonization, I don't know; I presume Chusid is merely channeling the Left's stereotype of Cheney as an evil Svengali who manipulated world events for eight years in collusion with Halliburton and the Bavarian Illuminati. At any rate, Cheney never consulted my opinion in the matter of U.S energy policy. If he had, my advice would have been to drill everywhere, especially off the Pacific coast within sight of Barbara Streisand's Malibu mansion.

That brings us to the K Street Project. Its origin is well-known: Tom DeLay observed in the late 1990s that Washington lobbying firms were dominated by Democrats. Even after the GOP took charge of Congress in 1995, former Republican members of Congress and their aides were outnumbered 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 in the ranks of top DC lobbyng firms -- and when those firms made political contributions, a similar disproportion was apparent. So DeLay brought pressure to bear to rectify what he saw as an unfair practice. End of story, unless you want to conflate this with corrupt influence-peddling, which is a glass house inside of which no wise congressional Democrat would dare throw a stone.

"The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans for deficits. Sic semper hoc.

Chusid's "about" page envisions a point at which "Republicans break free of their control by the religious right and neoconservatives." I'll let the neocons defend themselves, but what harm exactly has the "religious right" done to deserve Chusid's contempt or hostility? Who does he have in mind by this term, "religious right"?

What Chusid wants, of course, is the political disempowerment of the only solid voting bloc the GOP can count on. What would he say if I dreamt of a day when "Democrats break free of their control by labor unions and the abortion lobby"? He'd laugh me to scorn, of course, since the AFL-CIO, SEIU and Emily's List are the Democratic Party.

It's an annihilationist vision (a bumper sticker slogan, Imagine No Republicans) and nothing more. Chusid's just conjuring up propaganda bogeys -- Nixon! Cheney! and Bush! Oh, my! -- rather than engaging in argument. Fine. When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.