Tuesday, July 11, 2006

To "V" or not to "V"

As the candidates head into the home stretch - early voting starts in two days - for the August primary, I respectfully remind the three stooges running in the GOP U.S. Senate primary of the importance of being clear about what they mean when they say what they say.
Case in point - Ed Bryant (let's call him stooge #1) is questioning the "electability" of Bob Corker (let's call him stooge #2) claiming that stooge #2's flip flops on core right wing litmus tests such as abortion, taxes and immigration are liabilities going into the November general election.
Stooge #1 said "we cannot have a neutered Republican" like stooge #2 as the GOP standard bearer in the general election.
Stooge #2 had his campaign director (let's call him stooge #2's sidekick) call stooge #1's attack on stooge #2's manhood "desperate."
Van Hilleary (stooge #3 and a true soprano in his own right) said through a female spokesperson that there is no way for voters some days to distinguish stooge #2's record from the democratic nominee's - an embrace of sorts of stooge #1's "neutered" point.
Stooges #1 and #3's points are valid with respect to stooge #2's flip flop record of service. The flip flops - pro choice, then pro life; raises taxes, then rails against taxes - are well documented.
But all this back and forth raises an even more fundamental question - could stooge #1 have made the same strong point about stooge #2 without using the "neutered" analogy? Would the soundbite have had the same "bite" if stooge #1 had used the analogy of a "vasectomy" instead?
Let's study the facts.
On "neutering":
- my few seconds of exhaustive Google research today turned up the fact that "neutering" is just a fancy word for castration, which is performed on pets to prevent breeding and aggressiveness
- my exhaustive research also showed that "neutering" has side effects that may include bloating and lack of interest in any exercise
- clearly stooge #1 does not want to see stooge #2 breed or be aggressive, and he might even enjoy watching stooge #2 blow up like a pig on the campaign trail
- and even a male chimp can see that castration has got to be THE most painful procedure, not to mention the post-procedure humilation of having no "cajones".
On "vasectomy":
- things are snipped but it ain't castration
- it does prevent breeding
- stooge #2 might still be aggressive
- stooge #2 would not necessarily blow up like a pig and may still want to exercise
- the procedure is considered more humane
- stooge #2 keeps his "cajones"
Conclusion? It would appear based on the facts that stooge #1 was probably justified in referring to stooge #2 as a "neutered" Republican.
The overwhelming factor I did not reference in the above mentioned facts - but which actually holds more weight on stooge #1's behalf than anything Google can produce - is that calling stooge #2 a "neutered Republican" is a better soundbite and...is...well...funny.
Think about it - do you really think any blog or media outlet would have deemed newsworthy the claim of stooge #1 that stooge #2 has had a "vasectomy?"