Friday, October 17, 2008

John McCain = my new penpal?

I've been getting solicitations from a McCain PAC and, although it is a huge waste of time to do anything other than chuck them in the trash, I can't help but respond and send them back, as the postage is paid. Anyways, hopefully this one will get me off of their mailing list:


October 17, 2008


John McCain
c/o McCain-Palin Victory 2008
PO Box 7805
Merrifield, VA 22116-9934

Dear Also Friend,

I received your letter of September 29, 2008 with great relish. While I have a social circle of which I am very proud, I have never before been able to boast of so venerable an acquaintance. To think: one of the major party candidates in the 2008 presidential race opens a letter to me with the salutation “Dear Friend.” Me, a life-long Democrat who staunchly opposes the war in Iraq, as well as almost every single aspect of the Republican Party as it currently stands!!!! Truly, Senator, your self-touted reputation for “reaching across the aisle” is an understatement. You appear to be willing to reach across registered voter affiliation, as well.

And not a moment too soon: After watching the debate on Wednesday night, I was left with the impression that you were a braying jackass who felt it appropriate to scoff, sniffle, wheeze, and roll your eyes whenever your opponent put forth not simply an idea that ran counter to yours, but any morpheme or phoneme approximating language. Your mannerisms became so exaggerated and ill-suited for the environment of a presidential debate that I feared you might have suffered a stroke. As someone who both cares about your health as a human being and who suffers mild arrhythmia at the thought of Sarah Palin as President, you can see my concern in this matter.

But your letter has done a great deal to alleviate my worry. Addressing me as “friend” certainly helps. You get more flies with honey, my grandmother always said. She was neither a plumber nor was she named “Joe” or “Six-Pack,” but I nonetheless am willing to rely on her as an authority in this instance. Anywho, not only did you soften me with your greeting, you then went on to make several statements that I simply cannot refute. I quote from your letter, Senator:

Item One:

“From here on out the full scope and power of the Democrats’ relentless and battle-tested money churning engine is aimed at one target: Capturing total control of our government.”(page 1, paragraph 7)

How can I argue with that? Your reasoning is clear and concise: The Democrats are trying to get as many of their candidates to win as possible in the coming election. It is a testament both to their all-consuming greed and to the will of a disenfranchised and abused electorate that this could possibly occur. It’s particularly unfair to you as, for the last eight years, it appeared that the Democrats were so willing to bend to the Republican will that at times I too assumed that they were actively trying to lose elections. I am as shocked as you, believe me, to see them field candidates who appear to have a chance of winning.

Item Two:

“The differences between our Republican candidates and that of the Obama Democrats could not be greater.”(page 2, paragraph 3)

Again with the unassailable point! You, sir, possess a rhetorical skill that mirrors the great Socrates, himself. You don’t merely scoff at Obama’s tax plan, which is the one that will ease my tax burdens directly, nor do you simply disagree over health care, where you favor a plan that will scuttle states’ rights to regulate insurance and penalize employer-based plans. In fact, you plough on through to an energy policy that could not be considered progressive even by 19th century standards. It was foolhardy of Senator Obama, in the debates, to routinely outline his strategies for implementing policy, in contrast to your strategy of ad hominem attack and servile platitudes to a very special repair man. To the untrained observer, it would appear as though Obama were using his time to make a constructive case for his platform to the American viewer. In reality, he had fallen for your rope-a-dope by unwittingly illustrating your point all along: the two candidates have wildly different views on critical matters. Genius. Let him try and refute that point from here on. The American populace will not be fooled.

Item Three:

“The outcome of the November election will not be determined on the day we go to the polls. It will be determined by what we do in these final days and weeks leading up to that historic day. It will be determined by what we do – and do not do – right now.”(page 3, paragraph 10 AND postscript, page 4)

A point so valid you had to make it twice. Could this be a nod to the word-for-word similarities between your convention address and your purportedly new stump speech unveiled this week? If so, you might well be the first presidential candidate to ever introduce the conceits of postmodern fiction to the campaign. Independently of that, however, I agree with your sentiment. Both times. What you do, and do not do, will impact the election. If you speak on the economy, for instance, it will most likely remind the voters that your party (under whose banner you are running, regardless of whether you have butted heads with party leaders over issues) presided over the deregulation of the mortgage and banking industry, a series of acts which almost every economist points to as the genesis of our current meltdown. On the subject of inaction, if you continue to sit silently by as attendees at your rallies shout out hate-filled invectives calling for the murder of your opponent, the majority of voters (and, really, citizens of the entire world) will think that you are at the very least complicit in fomenting hate and violence in a manner not unlike some of history’s most appalling demagogues.

And so I thank you, friend. Not only do I thank you for your generosity in your appraisal of me, nor solely in your desire to reach out to me and find issues upon which we both agree, but also for providing me the opportunity to correspond with you at no cost to myself. The fact that this PAC has seen fit to cover the expense of postage makes me grateful to no end. At this point, I have given both the Obama campaign and Move On a (for me) fair amount of money, but your campaign, despite having never received a cent from me, is willing to pay for me expressing my ideas. Thank you for this opportunity. I will never give you any money.



Warmly,

David Slade

1 comment: