Oh, those laughable, lamentable, looney, lugubrious lefties at the NY Times. What will they think of next?
Hey, here's something fresh! Dean's World, Power Line and Slant Point point us to a heaping platter of seditious sour grapes from the NY Times.
Just kidding, of course. Oh, not about the Times apparently wishing for an assassination. I mean I was kidding when I said this was fresh. It's old hat. I've been reading calls for assassination ever since the first chad began to dangle in 2000. There was even a lame "play," at a "secret location" in NYC, called "I'm Gonna Kill the President."
But here's the part I don't understand. Folks, I'm kinda slow sometimes. (I am a Bush voter, after all, and we all know Republican voters are dumber than Dems — not surprising when Bush has been proven dumber than any modern president.) That's why I need some help understanding the supposed benefits of this "assassination" thing.
Has anyone broken the news about succession to the Loony Left? No, not secession. (We'll break the news about that later; let the poor dears dream for now.) I mean succession — the protocol of who becomes president if Bush is out of the picture.
Bush dies? Who lies? Why, it's President Dick Cheney! (R)
Cheney's gone? Let's move on! Play "Hail to the Chief" for former House Speaker, President Dennis Hastert! (R)
Hastert's dead? Let's get Ted! Ted Stevens (R), that is. Formerly President Pro Tem of the Senate; now he's President Stevens to you.
And so on.
In practical terms, of course, one of President Cheney's first acts would be to appoint a new Vice President. If there wasn't enough time for that to be accomplished before President Cheney bought the farm, the presidency would move on down a very long line of successors, Bush appointees all. I fail to see any way a non-Republican could become president in the next four years, no matter how many "acts of God" the Times hopes for.
Can anyone find a flaw? Is there something those smart, intel-ek-shul Times folk understand that I'm just not getting? 'Cause I've heard this "hope Bush dies in office" drumbeat so often, and from people I wouldn't expect to be rooting for a President Cheney, that it's starting to cause cognitive dissonance.
And "dissonance" is a mighty big word for a dummy like me. It's giving me a headache. Some compassionate assassination advocate out there, please tell me where I'm miscalculating the order of succession, so I can write the Times and tell them how much I admire their perspicacity.
