A bipartisan State of the Union drinking game

As readers of Eric Boehlert’s book, “Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press,” know, online pundits have, since the very beginning, done their best to promote and praise (then Senator now President) Barry Obama and to respectfully offer clear perceptive and cogent advice to him, as needed.  Somebody should point out that perhaps the “your game, your rules, I’ll win” crowd would like it if the President did take the Republican advice to show bipartisanship during his term in office and then used it to his own advantage.

As the history of the Obama legend continues to unfold, it will be with great pride that members of the Obamanaires Choral Club sing his praises as the historic first year of the Age of Obama comes to a conclusion.  During the State of the Union address, the bloggers can give him an “Amen!” loud and clear when it is appropriate.

Any rapscallion, who dares to blaspheme with an expostulation of the “you lie” sort, during the President’s oration, should be given short shift and immediately be provided a chance to endorse a bipartisan approach to the “don’t taze me, bro” school of stifling free speech.  Using the stun gun during the State of the Union speech would be a valuable, commendable example of giving the use of electronic crowd control a bi-partisan (who you calling bi?) endorsement.  Why should the Republicans be the only ones who can shush dissent with a tazer gun?  The use of the megawatt baton should not be granted a pass by the passive aggressive Bush supporters, who previously enthusiastically greeted the “zap ‘em early and zap ‘em often” methodology for the effective elimination of dissenting points of view.  The use of tazers should also be available to Democratic Presidents.

If any surviving members of the SA brownshirts use their trademark disruptive behavior on Wednesday during the State of the Union Address, then this columnist respectfully suggests that they be sent to Guantanamo to be given an unprecedented opportunity to compare their group’s use of coercive questioning methods versus America’s “this will hurt me more than you” selective questioning augmented by the sparse use of physically induced psychological encouragement to “answer the f*****g question” type humanitarian interrogations. 

It is to be assumed that the Republicans will listen attentively and respectfully on Wednesday night to provide a textbook perfect example of how the Democrats should behave when, after winning the 2012 election President Dick Cheney gives his first State of the Union Address in January of 2014.  (Unless the Dickster croaks before then and he has to be replaced by Vice President Jeb Bush.)

Don’t the teabag fondlers (make that word “founders”) provide the teabaggers with the best legal defense team that they (the Koch Brothers) can afford?  [Are they related to Fred Koch who helped form the John Birch Society?]  Why don’t they encourage the Democrats to use disruptive commotions at Republican events?  Isn’t it just another example of free speech at work?

Wednesday’s State of the Union address will provide the President with a marvelous opportunity to elaborate on just how sending additional troops to Afghanistan exemplifies the old hippie adage of “More is Less.”  Isn’t it logical to conclude that the more troops you send to a war the less chance the bad guys will have of winning?

The State of the Union address on Wednesday would be grand opportunity for a discussion of labor relations tactics that the President intends to use. 

How will President Obama handle the sit-down strike by the Republicans in the Senate?  Will he see it more like the 1936 General Motors strike or will he use more strident measures as Ford did during the 1932 workers protests?  It is to be assumed that a Democratic President would be more lenient with the workers (striking Republican Senators) than Ford management was.  Didn’t the Republicans endorse the Ford solution to recalcitrant workers?  Isn’t turnabout fair play?

Did some teabagger in the back of the room just yell:  “<a href = http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/concept72_gleichschaltung.htm >Gleichschaltung</a> now!”?  Shouldn’t they actually fear that restarting such a drastic measure for the elimination of the most pesky members of an opposing party might work against them?

What would the Democrats do if, during the speech, the Republican Senators lock arms and try to drown out the President’s words by singing:  “We shall overcome!”?

Fretting about any disrespectful expression of Republican dissent is an irrelevant way to pass the time because all red blooded patriotic Americans know that the principle of “it can’t happen here” was firmly established in the American culture during one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s many terms in office.

Speaking of respectful dissent, the recent revelations about Paul Harvey’s close association with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, reminded this columnist of the old days when, while listening to Harvey’s enthusiastic response to the shootings at Kent state, a reliable source proclaimed that all German Shepherds are Republicans and that obscure fact explained that breed’s wholehearted commitment to the suppression of student uprisings on campus following “the Age of Camelot” years. 

Barron Siegfried L. von Richthofen was the greatest dog who ever lived and therefore it must be assumed that when it came to canine matters, he was infallible.  He supported President Richard Nixon and he was relentless in his assertion that “Extremism in the defense of law’n’order is no vice.”

Youth must be served (provided they can show photo ID proof of age) and so for any adolescent members of the audience reading this attempt at audience “warm up,” it would be best if this columnist were to add to the eager anticipation of Wednesday night’s speech by devising a way to transmogrify it into an opportunity to conduct a bipartisan drinking game. 

Brits might easily adapt (since it will be about 2 a.m. in London when the speech is seen on satellite TV) the game of “Yee-HAAA!” to the occasion.  For Americans we will submit this suggestion:  Every time the TV cameras show Republicans applauding, Democrats may take a slug from the whisky bottle.  If, heavens forfend, there is any unseemly Republican disruption, the Democrats playing the game must chug what remains in the whisky bottle and cry:  “Aye, lad, there’s the rub!” 

Republicans, when they catch themselves going on auto-pilot and giving knee-jerk reaction applause, must take a dignified sip of family values approved sarsaparilla and exclaim:  “Bless his heart!”  If, at any time, the Republicans spontaneously erupt into a standing ovation, they must drain the remaining portion from the whisky bottle and cry:  “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!”

This bit of wisdom was related to us in our college days (and attributed to Senator Huey Long):  “Not drunk he is, who from the floor, can rise alone and still drink more; but drunk he is who prostrate lies, with power to neither drink or rise.” 

Now, the disk jockey will play Ernest Tubb’s “Pass the Booze,” Frank Sinatra’s “One more for my baby (and one more for the road),” and Jerry Lee Lewis’s “Drinking wine Spo-dee-oh-dee.”   (Hat tip to <a href = http://barstoolmountain.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-100-drinking-songs.html>Barstool Mountain blog</a>.)  It’s time for us to go and locate a good Irish bar in Berkeley, which will feature the speech on their TV.  Have a “tonight the bottle let me down” type week.


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: