Every Friday, the Chronicle punishes its readers by publishing the opinions of a columnist whose name I refuse to mention for fear of accidentally feeding her delusions of Google-grandeur. She is billed as "an international professional speaker and author" (does this mean she speaks many languages?), and she very often spews the sort of bile that would make Ann Coulter proud. Worse yet, the editors seems unwilling to, you know, edit her in any way, which means that her columns--when I can stand to read them--are always riddled with not only factual errors but also stupid spelling and usage mistakes. In short, TGIF just doesn't apply when it comes to the Chronicle's editorial page.
Even knowing all of this, I just couldn't stop myself from reading further when I saw this great paragraph:
A Tester win gives the Senate to Democrats and a year from now New York Sen. Chuck Schummer [sic, unless she's trying to make a subliminal, German-pronounced point that Schummer is Scum] will pass gun control, Hillary Clinton will pass national health care, Barney Franks will be espousing the “new tolerant family values” of America and Ted Kennedy will be cutting the military budget. No, my friend, those aren’t scare tactics, they are the facts.
Holy crap! That would be an amazing turn of events. A little old Montana Senate race reversing years of Republican control and allowing the Democrats to successfully push an agenda of liberal ideals so ambitious that it would be a miracle to get through a sitting Democratic president? I had no idea that a freshman senator could possibly wield that kind of influence.
Plus, how much of a wimpout is it that she didn't finish strong? "Ted Kennedy will be cutting the military budget"?!?! I know that she could do better. Frankly, I had imagined the end of that sentence to be something like, "...and Ted Kennedy will sponsor laws allowing him to drive a different woman off a Martha's Vineyard bridge every month" or "...and Ted Kennedy will finally get to drink the blood of little white Christian babies as he has always desired." Where's the fear there, international professional speaker and author?
Still, she concludes the column as a whole in a grand fashion, managing to point out the numerous reasons that one shouldn't vote for Burns and the Republicans:
So you are mad at Conrad Burns, disgusted with Foley, disillusioned by politics, discouraged with the war in Iraq, mad at the President, frustrated by the national debt and sick of the dirty campaigning.
So what? Vote for them anyway! They've been so good for us all so far, what's not to like? (I'm paraphrasing that part.)
She then delivers what she obviously believes to be the final coup de grace:
Every time you hear or see a Tester ad, remember, well-healed [sic again, unless she's using code to call into question the moral health of Democratic legislators] Washington, D.C., Democrats are paying for that ad because they think your vote is for sale. Tell them it’s not.
And then, ask your doctor if Subvertalot (TM), the medicine that allows you to completely ignore reality while casting your vote for Republicans, is right for you! Subvertalot is only available by prescription, and side effects may include loss of international standing, disappearance of international human rights guarantees, increased flow of money to wealthy corporations, and the slow demise of the middle class. In studies, side effects were severe and lasting. The only known antidote for side effects of Subvertalot (TM) is casting your vote for Tester.