A Field Guide to Rudy Boosters - Introduction

2/20/2007 | dirtboy tory peterson

[dirtboy]

Political observers are falling over themselves trying to determine the cladistics of a newly-emergent population of political animal, the Rudy booster. This appears to be the first new species of Republican to emerge in over two decades in the Family Republicanae (the last being Conservatisi reagani), and displays a particularly odd range of behaviors that call into question the long-term political viability of the new species, as well as that of Republicanae in general if they assume a position of dominance.

Some observers have proposed classifying the new population as a subspecies of Rinous rockefelleri, whereas others have made a fairly convincing case that the new species properly belongs within the Family Democratus and the genus/species of Scoopjacksonae liebermani - an endangered group of pro-war liberals with otherwise no conservative positions, hunted nearly to extinction by the more rabid Friedhippybrainous deaniaci. But for now, they will will treated as a separate species within Rinous.

In this field guide, we will discuss the observed talking points to date of the Rudy boosters as a means to understanding their behavior in the wild, whether those are calls of alarm, anger, deception or delusion, and what those mean for making a proper and clinical determination of whether this is just a subspecies displaying new liberal tendencies is truly an emergent new species, perhaps due to geographic isolation in the liberal Northeast.

For example, take the now-commonly-heard talking point that Rudy can beat Hillary. This talking point does display anger and deception tendencies at times (especially when the Rudy booster is getting hammered on other subjects), but should properly be placed into the delusion category, given that Giuliani never outpolled Hillary during the 2000 NY Senate race even though he was the sitting mayor and she was a carpetbagger with cankles that would send Godzilla screaming back into the ocean, never to return.

And this talking point shows the precarious nature of the Rudy booster's existence - namely, that they believe that their candidate can hold together the GOP despite the lessons of 1992. That Rudy can pull in key pro-life Catholic Dem swing voters despite getting awards from NARAL. And that a pro-war candidate can survive if he strikes out leftward in search of votes into regions that are increasingly antiwar.

Interested observers are encouraged to post their observations of talking points and opinions as to the proper cladistics for Rudy boosters. This field guide will initially be organized topically and also by electoral strategy, although that could change if the behavior of Rudy boosters continues to grow more irrational and erratic.

Next chapter - how to get Rudy boosters shrieking like howler monkeys - bring up the 2nd Amendment

[dirtboy]

He doesn't like the fact that I have better sources than National Review.

Whenever you get around to sobering them up, please post them. Or quit annoying us with your make-believe world.

[Delphinium]

Wow, we have some nuts on FR don't we. Why, why, why, did I bother?

[dirtboy]

I might have to write A Field Guide to Substance-Addled Democrats Posting on FR after I'm done with this one.

[Delphinium]

You are writing a book aren't you? This is great material.

You'll make so much money! I'm excited for ya!

[oceanview]

so which 2008 candidate is going to do BETTER then Bush did with the base in 2004? none of them by my account. its not that the base is unimportant, its that they alone cannot win it.