To: bartcop@bartcop.com
Cc: bradyk@flash.net

Subject: Brady, Scrape That Substance Off Your Shoes
 

Bartcop,
I've been away for a couple of weeks, with no news sources other than
USAToady [sic] -- the newspaper of choice of cheap motels -- the Sunday LA Times,
and the Marc Rich Pardon Cable Service.  Here's what passes for "conservative" opinion:

USAToady published a letter from a reader claiming that the current economic slowdown
proves that the Reagan-Bush economy was so mighty, it took Clinton eight years to succeed  in
"running it into the ground."  But now I'm back home, and it's been pure pleasure reading your
back issues.  I don't want to torment you, but since you asked -- you missed
the introduction of the Ralph Nader character on West Wing.  You would have
enjoyed Toby's response to his threat to run against President Bartlett.

Your would-be critic, Brady in Dallas (Volume 397), claims you have no
"substance" and you don't know the "issues."  (For some Republicans, the
only "substance" IS the "issue" from a blow job.)  At least you know who
received the most votes in Florida's presidential election, you know who
Selene Walters is, you understand how the economy works and you know a lie
when you see one -- the White House "vandalism" story is just one example.
(Note to Brady:  That stuff about an IQ of 64 is a joke.)

Rush uses humor as a cover for his ignorance.  When Rush indulges in
scapegoating, and when he's trapped in an inanity or a lie, he claims he was
just kidding.  I have listened to only a few of his shows -- Dr. Laura is my
bete noire -- but every time, he's come up with something ludicrous, which
he presents to his audience as (to borrow a phrase) a "logical opinion."
For example, when Rush was denouncing the UPS strikers, he used the occasion
to bash the U.S. Postal Service as one of the countless -- and therefore,
unspecified -- federal government programs that don't work.  (Let's overlook
the fact that the USPS is not such a program; Rush doesn't claim to get
bogged down by facts, does he?)

One of his worshipful listeners respectfully informed Rush that contrary to his assertion,
no, a well-run business would NOT maintain idle personnel and equipment (as Rush said
the USPS should have done) on the off chance that it could use these resources
to take business away from a "competitor" in the event of a strike.  How sad
that Rush hasn't a clue about how his much-beloved free enterprise system
works.  If he did, he'd be quite indignant with Wall Street -- compare what
the market did before and after a Bush victory in 2000 seemed inevitable,
and you'll see how much confidence Wall Street has in the Resident.

By the way, Brady, why do you take such offense at the endearing nickname
"pigman," when it's applied to the overfed adult male who called a
twelve-year-old girl "the White House dog"?  I know what you'll say -- Rush
said that on his TV show, and hardly anyone ever watched his TV show.
 Well -- maybe a few more than read Bartcop.  I can't recall a time when
Bartcop has ridiculed a child -- other than Poppy's Boy.  Are you sure the
"other side" is the one that substitutes name-calling for reasoned discourse?

As for "logical opinions", Brady, Bartcop's got 'em out right where you can
see 'em; maybe the problem is that you can't tell "substance" from shinola.
Bartcop defends, much more staunchly than does Dubya, a citizen's right to
carry concealed weapons -- it's amazing how skittish that boy's become
lately about the Second Amendment, now that's he's got the Secret Service to
back him up in a fight.  Bartcop opposes the intrusion of government in the
personal lives of citizens -- including females of child-bearing age.

What's your opinion about that?  Bartcop has criticized wartime desertion,
driving while intoxicated (and with your little sister and your kid brother
as passengers!) and procurement of illegal abortions for underage girls by
adult "boyfriends."  Any objection from your side?  What's your thinking
about the advisability of counting all valid votes cast in an election --
should we bother to continue counting after one candidate has been declared
the winner by both his cousin and his brother?  Should we just say no to a
presidential candidate who didn't say when on the question of cocaine?
Don't tell me you're more "liberal" than Bartcop on the issue of the abuse
of illegal narcotics -- as long as it's powder rather than crack cocaine.
Bartcop has criticized the First Lady for killing a man and getting off
scot-free  -- is that OK with you?  (Would it still be OK after Bartcop
explained to you that he wasn't referring to Senator Clinton and Vince Foster?)

Brady, if you think you have poor old Bartcop right where you want him,
accept his invitation to debate -- if you haven't already.  Prove to him and
to all of us that we're much worse off than we were eight years ago, and
here comes the Guvner to the rescue.
 

Margaret Shemo