Philly Inquirer: Pistol Packing GOP Candidates at Debates are Racist Bible Thumpers
Apparently, the Philly Inquirer wants us to know that the GOP candidates for president are drooling, half sentient, Bible thumping, gun toting, racists. Oh, and Fred Thompson is stupid and lazy. Just as apparently, the Philadelphia Inquirer is having trouble finding writers for their rag. I mean, what else could explain their giving a teenager a shot at filling space in the Sunday issue? Of course, I could be wrong. It could be that Dick Polman only writes like a 15-year-old. Worse, Polman seems to have sold himself to the Inquirer as some sort of comedian with "The American Debate, For the love of guns, God and Reagan," too. But, if he IS an adult and really does think his Sunday piece is funny, well, there's no accounting for taste -- or sense -- on the far left, I suppose. I guess the joke is on the readers of the Inquirer.
Billed as "what the GOP candidates might say in the next Iowa debate to woo conservatives," Polman has decided the only thing that will do so is to appear as a gun crazed, racist that mindlessly echos Ronald Reaganisms. Like I said, it was supposed to be funny... I guess.
All the Republican presidential candidates will debate, again, on Wednesday in Iowa. Here's an exclusive look at the advance transcript.
And here is what Polman imagines is the first question:
All these candidates have said they support guns. But talk is cheap. I want to know if they're all proudly carrying their own guns, right now, right here on this stage.
Gentlemen, a show of hands . . . oh, my . . . that's quite an arsenal up there. Somebody nudge Fred Thompson, wake him up. Sen. Thompson? Hello? What do you have?
So, what does Polman imagine the candidates will say?
Fred Thompson: Uhhh, got me a AP4 carbine rifle with a 16-inch barrel. This little ole honey would have surely impressed Ronald Reagan.
Rudy Giuliani: So what? Mine's a bolt-action Remington. With a 24-inch barrel. Mine's bigger than yours. And that's not all I got. Say hello to my Charter Arms .44. It's ideal for home defense against Islamofascists, because 9/11 changed everything. By the way, fuggedaboutit, I can see that there's one wuss on this stage.
Mitt Romney: Yes, it's true: I am not armed at this time. But I did just buy a gun cabinet for Christmas, and I have the receipt right here, with copies for everyone, see? From Dick's Sporting Goods, and, my gosh, it's a beauty. Wood veneer, tempered glass, holds six long guns
(Candidates scrutinize the receipt. Civil cross talk.)
You can just feel that Leno's bookers are getting on the phone to book this funny man on the Tonight Show, eh? On second thought, he shouldn't give up his job at McDonald's just in case. There's an old joke about comedy that comedians like to throw out: "Don't try this at home, kids." It's a bit of advice that neither Dick Polman nor the Philly Inquirer seem to have followed.
Some of Polman's other less than humorous quips are:
Romney: In the future, I will personally escort all illegals off my property, at gunpoint. I believe that is what Ronald Reagan would have done.
Giuliani: If Gov. Romney is truly so committed to waterboarding, I'd like to know why he didn't use it against his illegal alien landscaper buddies who were sneaking into his sanctuary mansion and stealing his silverware.
The only laugh I get from this junk is that there are slobbering leftists like Polman who imagine this to be funny.
The rest of this childish attempt at humor is filled with Bible tropes, illegal alien bashing, Reagan invoking idiots that end the "debate" by shooting firearms at each other. It is probably one of the worst, low brow attempts at writing that I've seen in a big city newspaper. in fact, it is so bad, that there really isn't much else to bother going over here. I find myself writing an uncharacteristically short piece because there just isn't any there, there.
But, there are several things that did cross my mind after reading this thing. I wondered if Polman is a relative of the editor or publisher and they took pity on him and published his piece, knowing full well it was garbage (like a good Uncle, Father or Brother would for his challenged relative)? Did he have incriminating photos on someone that found him able to employ blackmail to get his ... whatever it is... published? Did he sneak into the prepress department at the offices and surreptitiously sneak his thing into the paper just before it went to press?
I mean, heck. There HAS to be some other reason than that the publisher and editor of the paper thought that this was good stuff!?
There just HAS to be a logical reason.
Maybe all the Philly Inquirer's real writers are on strike in solidarity with their comrades in Hollyweird?
There's just gotta be a reason!