mulishly monomaniac

.
First off, I should to thank the following lady for inviting me to continental breakfast, which I'm guessing will consist of coffee and croissant ... about what I was served in a Parisian hotel, whose name I've forgotten. The repast in question is scheduled to be served in The Starrucca House in the borough of Susquehanna Depot. By the way, this establishment is located on Depot Street, not Front Street.

Eminently pleased with such an honor, albeit bestowed through random selection, I mailed my R S V P in humble acceptance of the invitation, so graciously extended by

Sandra J Major, Member
Deputy Whip
Pennsylvania House of
. . . . . . . . . . . Representatives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By the way, the United States Postal Service recommends postage of 23 cents on postcards, rather than 21.

In gratitude for such an honor, I hereby dedicate the following essay to the spirit of free and frank and open exchange, for which "Sandy" expressed such ardent hope. To the greatest extent, conscience will tolerate, however begrudgingly so, I promise to the best of my ability to put the best face on my commentary. Oh, alright (!) already, so I write long sentences. Let me make up for it with another. No, it's not so short, but it's easily understood. Republicans keep their eyes on the prize, whereas Democrats allow themselves greater latitude of thought.

In obedience to offended conscience, albeit not all that easily so, I must elaborate a bit. So, here goes. Depending on one's point of view, Republicans are either steadfastly single-minded or mulishly monomaniac. Yeah, I realize I just cracked another sly joke. Turns out, I'm notorious for that.

For the moment, I should like to explain how come Democrats allow themselves greater latitude in thought. So far as I can tell, they believe they can differentiate their party from their country. Occasionally to the point of embarrassment, this belief brings Democrats into conflict with their party. At times, those recalcitrant Democrats adopt a policy goal they believe is for their country's good, even though it is manifestly incompatible with their party's avowed agenda.

It must be so. Those Democrats believe they are faithful patriots in placing the good of their country above that of their party. Every once in a great while, they justify such an espousal of policy goals by claiming whatever is good for the country, eventually, redounds to the benefit of the Democratic Party.

.... ..... ..... cast ye bread upon the waters ....

Were I to allow the spirit to me, I would adduce instances that illustrate just such a contention. But I won't, out of deference to my promise to put the best face on the matter. Depending on one's point of view, such instances would prove hilarious or wretched, or both. In fact in a few instances, nominal Democrats have aligned themselves with Republicans in pursuing this or that policy goal. Now that I think about it, adducing such instances may well be considered churlish.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to let the reader know that I'm painting with very broad brush strokes. Certainly, even perfunctory research could pull up exceptions. In comparison with the grand scheme of things, such exceptions among Democrats as well as Republicans may just as well be mentioned in minor footnotes. For my part, I'm concentrating on the crucial nitty gritty.

Now then, let's animadvert to what makes true-blue Republicans red-blooded Republicans. After pondering long and hard on the matter, I now opine that such Republicans conflate their party and their country. I repeat. Republicans conflate their party and their country. Repubicans conflate their party and their country, and this gives rise to a scandalous double standard.

Whatsoever is good for their party is necessarily, ipso facto even, good for their country. Whatsoever is deleterious to their party is necessarily, ipso facto again, deleterious to their country. Well, from what I can tell, the mahouts, now in charge of the fortunes of the G O P, owe their pre-eminent status to the party's rank and file, who've taken that conflation to heart ... hook, line and sinker.

Oh, for the moment, please permit me to must for a bit on a bit of hard earned lore one hears on the boulevard of that "fabulous invalid", namely, Broadway. Satire is what closes Saturday night. Keeping that bit of lore in mind, I restrict my attempt at satire to the following paragraph with brief follow-up.

Let us suppose we happen upon a true-blue and red-blooded Republican, who's gaping and "flash frozen" aghast with soul-singing disbelief. As we look about, we espy a Murphy Brown wanna-be, slinking off with live teevee camera crew in tow, and leering triumphantly. It's all too obvious. The Republican in question had resolved to present the teevee viewers with dignified demeanour, but unfortunately fell victim to scurrilous liberal media bias. The victim in question had been presented with a question only the very worst of liberal media fiends could've posed. Such a fiend would be somebody like Al Franken, who's number 34 on a certain list ... shades of the McCarthy era! Why, the very temerity, required to pose such a question, threatens the universal matrix of time and space with discombobulation. Those Republicans, who are devoutly so, are advised to skip over the follow-up.

And it is thus: ... in any "raison d'etre" conflict between your party and your country, which (?) could better and would better claim your loyalty!

. . . . . . . . oh, the horror ... the horror .... By the way, the first e in etre should be diacritically crowned circumflex.

My only excuse for the preceding satire is simply this: spirit is every bit as weak as flesh.

So ends my attempt to produce an article that adheres to the spirit of free and frank and open exchange.

toodles
. . . .. . .he who is known as sefton