Republican Candidates Race to the Bottom, but the Audience Gets There First

For anyone who missed the CNN Republican candidates’ debate last night, Here it is, boiled down to its essentials. As in the CNN Democratic debate, the audience played a significant role, so their contribution has been included. In many cases, not all candidates answered the questions, but their thoughts were apparent and have been included for your convenience, in brackets.

Question Number One, from Earyl in Rounders Bend, Montana:
EARYL (drooling, holding up his pants with one hand while playing with the safety of a Desert Eagle with the other): Which one of you pilgrims has got the biggest piece? And are you gonna mess with my rights to carry this one? Don’t worry, (giggles) I haven’t shot up the schoolhouse yet.

DUNCAN HUNTER: In the American tradition, I am armed to the teeth. So is my family. My little grandson, he’s so cute, you should see him with his twenty-gauge that his Mamma gave him.
MITT ROMNEY: My sons have guns! My sons do! Three of them! Guns, that is. I love guns! Guns are great! Guns …
MODERATOR: Time’s up!
MITT ROMNEY: …Guns !
RUDY GIULIANI: Guns? I don’t need no stinkin’ guns. I am Rudy damn Giuliani, and you had better watch out.
TOM TANCREDO: [When are they going to ask about immigration? When?]
FRED THOMPSON: Boy, you don’t get to see my piece. Only mah waf gets to see that big boy!
AUDIENCE: Laughs, scattered boos.
RON PAUL: [ ~sigh~ These sub-cretin anti-intellectual yahoos never stop yammering on about their guns. Why don’t they just read None Dare Call it Treason? That explains everything.]
MIKE HUCKABEE: As the only bona-fide Christian minister up on the podium, I am armed with the Bible.
JOHN MCCAIN: [Why am I up here? When can this be over?]

Question Number Two, from Earryll, in Apocalyptic Revelation, Alabama:
Earryll (staggering back and forth in front of the camera and struggling to hold up an enormous Bible): I have a question, which if answered properly, will unlock the secrets of the Universe, and all of you had better get it right or God will punish you. What is your interpretation of the Whore of Babylon?

AUDIENCE: Roars of approval, menacing foot stamping.
DUNCAN HUNTER: I read the Bible every day to my family. And the whore of Babylon, obviously, is Hillary Clinton.
AUDIENCE: Laughter, shouts of agreement.
MIKE HUCKABEE: I believe in every word that’s in the Bible, literally. Except the part about plucking out your own eye. I don’t go there.
MITT ROMNEY: I believe in the Bible too, including the part about plucking out your own eye! In fact … (tries to pluck out his own eye, is restrained by moderator and Rudy Giuliani).
RUDY GIULIANI (breathing hard): Whew. I carry a bible with me everywhere. Under my shirt. In case one of my ex-wives or children takes a shot at me.
FRED THOMPSON: I have the words of the good book tattooed all over my private parts. But I’m not gonna show you, ‘cause they’re private.
TOM TANCREDO: [When are they going to ask about immigration? When?]
JOHN MCCAIN: [Why am I up here? When can this be over?]
RON PAUL: [ ~sigh~ These sub-cretin anti-intellectual yahoos never stop yammering on about their Bibles. Why don’t they just read Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That explains everything.]

Question Number Three, from Earryylleene in Flashback, Nevada:
EARRYYLLEENE (sitting primly with hands in lap): I would love to get a job mowing lawns, scrubbing toilets or cutting up dead chickens in a smelly factory, but I can’t get hired because of all these Mexicans everywhere. How quickly will you throw them out? Also, if I get an abortion, which one of you will punish me the hardest?
AUDIENCE: Roars of approval.
TOM TANCREDO: [At Last!]
FRED THOMPSON: That’s a two part question. I don’t answer two part questions.
RUDY GIULIANI: When I was mayor of New York, I ratted out thousands of illegals to the federal government…
AUDIENCE: Roars of approval.
RUDY GIULIANI: Thanks. But the federal government never deported any of them.
AUDIENCE: Boos, Jeers, small objects thrown.
MITT ROMNEY: When I was governor of Massachusetts, I was as mean as can be to immigrants! I wouldn’t let them go to school or hospitals or drive a car!
AUDIENCE: Roars of approval.
MITT ROMNEY: Thanks! But the liberals in my state would not let me waterboard them!
AUDIENCE: boos, jeers, Chairs thrown.
MITT ROMNEY: (pointing) Aa-and that guy, Rudy, he operated a sanctuary city!
AUDIENCE: Boos, jeers, fists shaken at Giuliani.
RUDY GIULIANI: (pointing back) Well, Mitt, you ran a sanctuary mansion!
AUDIENCE: Boos, jeers, fists shaken at Romney.
MITT ROMNEY: (pointing) Aa-and that other guy, Huckabee, he ran a sanctuary state and had a sanctuary in his church!
AUDIENCE: Boos, jeers, fists shaken at Huckabee.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, now, let’s remember that we are all children of God.
AUDIENCE: Weeps, kneels, prays. Stars and Bars waved.
MODERATOR (coming out from behind RON PAUL, where he has been crouching): Let’s get some of the others in here for comment. And thanks to the audience for being so lively.
DUNCAN HUNTER: I’ve already taken the first step by putting up a huge honking fence between my district and Mexico. It’s got two walls, a road in between, watchtowers with machine gun mounts. When I am president, I will extend this wall around the entire United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. We’ll also have to mine the harbors and flood all the fields, in case the immigrants try to parachute in.
AUDIENCE: Roars of approval.
TOM TANCREDO: I just want to say how happy it makes me to see everyone up here trying to out Tom Tancredo Tom Tancredo in being harsher and more bigoted toward immigrants than Tom Tancredo. But it is just not possible. Sorry!
AUDIENCE: Roars of approval.
JOHN MCCAIN:[Why am I up here? When can this be over?]
RON PAUL: I am the only candidate up here with a workable, constitutional solution to this problem. It’s obvious if you read the “Proceedings of the Tri-lateral Commission” that these 12 million Mexicans are agents of a foreign power. So the solution is to give them all citizenship…
AUDIENCE: Jeers, boos, chairs thrown, fists shaken, weapons brandished.
RON PAUL: Wait, wait… and then try them all for treason and execute them!
AUDIENCE: Wild applause. Frenzied dancing in the aisles. Pistol shots.
MODERATOR: Well, we have time for just one more question. Traditionally, it’s lighthearted, so…
Question Number Four, from Sal, in Flatbush:
SAL: Yo, Rudy! What’s up with rooting for the Red Sox in the World Series?
RUDY GIULIANI: I am a Yankee fan first, an American League fan second. So if the Yanks don’t make it to the series, I root for the AL team, Sal.
MITT ROMNEY: And in Massachussets, we hate the Yankees! Hate ‘em like sanctuary cities! Go, Sox!
AUDIENCE: Dead silence.

Help for the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has long puzzled legal authorities and ordinary citizens alike, owing to its peculiar sentence structure and the difficulty in interpreting its first, dependent, clause. This difficulty has caused a great deal of anxiety and name-calling between those who emphasize the “well-regulated militia” part of the amendment, and those who uphold the “right of the people” portion. Since no one really denies the right of the people to have some sort of firearm handy, but everyone gets confused over the meaning of a well-regulated force of amateur soldiers hallooing around with guns, it seems that it’s the first clause that will have to go. I herewith offer, in a spirit of patriotism and civic concern, three annotated suggestions for a replacement of the Second Amendment‘s opening clause that all of us can live with.
Suggestion Number One: “All the deer in the woods being a big nuisance, and even if they are not, it being a hoot to go out there and blast away at them, etc.”
This revision covers most cases of owning small arms, and may even extend to machine guns, rocket launchers and dynamite, as one can “blast” in many ways. If anyone can show that deer are not actually a “big nuisance” (hardly likely as long as there are gardeners), then the “hoot” clause provides coverage. The case of deer possibly going extinct is neatly covered by the “they are not “ wording. An objection may be raised that weapons activity seems to be limited only to “the woods”, but this is negated by the open-endedness of “out there”, which may be taken to include fields, streams, parking lots, shopping malls and church suppers, among other possible venues.
Suggestion Number Two: “The ability of any citizen to settle disputes in a manly way being central to a Judaeo-Christian society somewhat influenced by Hellenism and tempered by admiration for Roman virtue”, etc.
While this version might seem to be quite restrictive, in reality it balances an exhilarating permissiveness with sober responsibility. Anyone might get into a dispute, so anyone ought to be able to keep and bear. But on the other side, only “citizens” really get to do it, which effectively disarms illegal aliens and even legal aliens, for that matter, as well as felons and children. In rural communities and inner cities where nine-year-olds often carry guns, their rights can be protected simply by allowing them to vote. Female citizens need not be put off by the use of “manly” as it does not exclude them from owning weapons but merely characterizes the use of them as typically male behavior, something most women already believe to be true. Atheists and Muslims may take exception to “Judaeo-Christian”, but so what? They are always taking exception to something. Finally, the inclusion of Hellenism and Roman virtue opens the door to legalized assisted suicide, which might even bring the atheists back on board.
Suggestion Number Three: “It being a statistical probability approaching certainty that from time to time the executive branch may go bonkers, and that some of us will have to set them straight, etc”.
This third example is my personal favorite, as it gets nearer to the “original intent” of the founders concerning the Second Amendment as they wrote it. Additionally, it honors their effort to construct a document sufficiently vague as to be useful in any era. As a famous jurist has put it, “I cannot define ‘bonkers’, but I know it when I see it”. And each generation will certainly work out for itself not only the meaning of “bonkers” but also “set them straight”, not to mention “some of us”. But it’s the beauty of a written constitution that come what may, the ability to lock and load, just in case, remains inviolate in this version.
I am aware that in proposing three separate revisions, I may be open to the complaint that each one is only a partial solution. Rest assured that I have no objection to combining all three of them into one long, flowing clause if that is the only way to get the job done. Really, the larger the rationale, the more secure the safeguard. Plus it will generate a lot more business for lawyers just to figure out where to put the semi-colons. As a final note, I can imagine some doubters wondering how we will get along without the “well-regulated militia” part. To them I can only say, that’s what the National Guard is for. Isn’t it?