Well now, that’s done with and now I can get to the important stuff! I've got Thursday Three questions to answer!

As for Question 1, if I’m going to have to pretend to be a big-D Democrat, I truthfully think that there is a large swath of that party who can’t see a single redeeming thing about Republicans.

The original question as Jordana put it (‘from a Republican view, what are some good things about Democrats’) doesn’t seem to work the same way in reverse, and I think that might have to do with the way both parties break down demographically. To my (admittedly biased) eye, the Democratic party is made up of a conglomeration of multiple aggrieved groups.

Although the overall platform may espouse a generally innocuous sort of populism--affordable whatevers, taking care of the folks who can’t care for themselves, puppies, kitties, sunshine--that seems to be more of a convenient placeholder, with the real unifier in modern times being that you have an ax to grind.

And that you have a desire to tax grindstones.

And axe heads.

And you want to ban axes because they are only good for killing trees.

(Oops, sorry--that all just sorta slipped out.)

Anyway, so to try to put myself into the position of that group, in the contrarian, ‘black is white if you say it’s black’ sort of world that the Democratic party seems to have become, and try to come up with something nice to say about Republicans is kinda difficult. I am thinking right now of all the Democrats I know--and being a bureaucrat, it’s not like they are at all uncommon--and quite frankly I can never remember any of them saying anything complimentary about a Republican.

Maybe I just need to get out more.

If I were to look at it from more the little-d democrat perspective, I think I would say that most Republicans seem like folks who value playing by the rules, even if it hurts; who value the history and traditions that are common to all Americans; and who, although they might seem to be sort of narrow-minded, are basically just folks, too.

Question 2--Introspection, eh? If I were a Republican (which I’m not--I don’t belong to any political party), what would I think were three bad things about my party?

Well, one would be the tendency to be baited into arguing with toddlers.

Second would be a not-very-concerted effort to articulate ideas and ideals so that they are not seen as divisive--although you might believe the way Social Security works is a farce, or that the U.N. doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on, explain WHY with ideas, not platitudes.

Third, learn that the status quo is sometimes not worth conserving. Things such as the recent proposals floating about for a national sales tax might be non-starters, or might work, or might be the road straight to perdition, but it’s still worth getting them out there in the public and let them grow or wilt on their merits.

NOW THEN, Number 3!

To start out with the tale of the tape, Dr. Zebra has an EXTENSIVE physical history of Mr. Bush, where we find that the 58 year old President is 6ft tall (although other sources put him at 5ft-11 3/4in), and weighs in at an awfully precise 189.75 pounds. Info on 60 year old Mr. Kerry is not quite so easy to find, nor so extensive, but this from the Detroit Free Press lists the junior senator from Massachusetts at 6ft-4in and weighing in at 185 pounds. (A similar Detroit Free Press listing for Mr. Bush is here.)

Both men are physically fit and engage in a variety of sporting activities. Bush has been known to be clumsy when operating various wheeled vehicles such as bicycles and Segways, and Kerry is surrounded by a corps of Secret Service agents who continually push him over and make him fall.

On the surface, Kerry’s longer reach and greater height is an automatic advantage, especially in a bare-knuckle brawl where it’s much more important to keep your opponent at bay. A drawback for him is that his tends to exhibit a gracelessness in movement that has led less charitable commentators to call him Lurch. Bush, although shorter, is stockier, and although noted as being less adept at travel using inherently unstable two-wheeled vehiculation, he is agile on his feet and shows great stamina. His knees have been giving him trouble, which means his roadwork regimen has suffered, but his reflexes are still with him.

Although characterized as rash and impulsive by critics, Bush actually is probably the more cagey of the two fighters, allowing his opponents to expend much of their energy trying to draw him into exchanging blows. Some have characterized this as akin to Ali’s “rope-a-dope,” but it seems to be employed with much less theatrical drama, until he takes it upon himself to strike back.

Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be the more impetuous of the two fighters, with a propensity to shoot first and ask for a medal later. Being the larger of the two men, and possibly worried about being seen by the gathering crowd as timid in the face of a challenge, Kerry might seek to use his physical advantage early on with a rapid series of blows to the head and upper torso of Bush.

I believe Bush however, would anticipate this attack and lay in wait, using the arena to move around and weaken Kerry with his stamina. Kerry would see his younger opponent on the run and assume he had the upper hand, and due to his well-known vanity believe he had the match in hand. At this point, he would become less protective of his midsection and his defenses in general, almost to the point of being lackadaisical.

Sensing an opening, Bush would wait for just the right moment when Kerry isn’t paying attention and is off-balance, sensing victory, and rush forward and begin a devastating rain of blows to Kerry’s solar plexus.

Kerry, now winded and tired, would begin to cry and want to call off the match because it was so barbaric and because he thought he has won on points. Bush would point out that there were no referees or judges, because it was a bare-knuckles brawl, after all, and would then deliver a strong uppercut to Kerry’s jaw, breaking at least two of his fingers in the process. (Even a skilled tactician can occasionally make a mistake, and a blow to Kerry’s long, horselike jaw would be damaging to the opponent even if a bottle were employed.)

At this point, John Edwards would arrive with a restraining order, and he would be slapped around like a cheap floozie by the assembled spectators. Kerry, sensing his gut tightening and throbbing in pain would then cry some more and call a halt to the proceedings.

Bush would go to graciously shake hands with his defeated opponent (using the hand without broken fingers), whereupon Kerry would immediately use that to throw him to the ground and say the fight was back on. Booed by the spectators for being a sneak and a cheat, Kerry would be distracted to scream at them that no one had a right to question his patriotism.

Using his one opening, Bush would quickly roll away, because he had seen something out of the corner of his eye--a drunken Ted Kennedy swaggering though the crowd, holding a cocktail and with his other arm around an equally drunk Michael Moore. Just as Kerry’s girly fit reaches a crescendo, Moore and Kennedy stumble to the front of the crowd in a stupor and fall on Kerry, crushing him into a very thin, tomato-like paste.

So I think Bush would win.
posted by Terry at 11:45:00 AM