Quail Duck

Time for a blog ramble (worry not; the Artful Scammer will return).

In life, accidents happen. Somehow, when they happen to the rich, famous and powerful, they're more interesting: From cars off bridges, to golf balls into galleries and some bimbo saving a semen-stained dress, even down to a little buckshot between game birds and friends. Bottom line, accidents happen in life all the time. Why else would the AFLAC duck not be a gourmet meal right now?

Of course, when an accident happens to a bigwig -- especially a political one -- the rules change. And change. And change.

Here we have an accidental shooting on a private Texas ranch, involving the current vice-president. Anyone else, and it ain't nothin' but a thing and a PETA protest. And little more than a local thing at that. But because it did involve the current vice-president, and because a beltway press corps of arrogant, spoiled, snot-nosed brats has their nose out of joint that they weren't told first, it's the biggest thing to come along since the last biggest thing (that wasn't) to come along.

Last time a vice president wound up in the spotlight for shooting, we have to go back to Spiro Agnew, spraying the gallery with golfballs. I don't recall that amounting to much. Or even Aaron Burr, spraying Alexander Hamilton. I don't recall the hubbub over that, having been indisposed at the time, since I as currently constituted wasn't, and I don't know who I was as then incarnated (if you buy into that notion), but I digress.

I'll leave the politics of the accident to the talking heads (pontificating toilets...amusingly ironic). I'll leave the comparisons of Burr vs Agnew vs Cheney vs Ted Kennedy vs The Clintons & Vince Foster, et al, to the same talking heads. I'll especially leave the current air-headed conspiracy theorists to their own moronic drivel.

I have something much more obfuscationally interesting to ponder here.

Take the four personages of some notoriety pictured here. You're probably wondering what, if anything, they have in common. Probably not enough, but why stand on logical ceremony? All I have to do is apply the same kind of logic used by waskally progressives, and any analogy is thereby possible.

What do these four men have in common? Hunting, for one: each has hunted something in their life. Three of the four have hunted the same office; two of the three have bagged it. At least two of the four have hunted live game: one, wabbits and ducks. The other, pheasant, quail and a lawyer.

I'd go off about how there needs to be a season so more of us could have that pleasure legally, but I'd be digressing more.

One is animated: that's the way he's drawn, and he's sticking to it. The other three aren't, though it's argued that the three non-animateds are in serious need of something, even some degree of animation, depending on your own charisma rating and which side of the aisle you're on.
But which of the non-animated three is, in real life, most like Elmer Fudd?
Good question. And every bit as relevant as the question of why the beltway press wasn't told about the hunting accident before the rest of the world. Perhaps even moreso.

First off, let's be as clear as this whole blog entry is: Elmer Fudd has never been a vice-president. Far as I know, he's never run to be vice-president, let alone for the higher office. Which is probably just as well: like Jimmy Carter, he's had unfortunate and well-documented run-ins with a maniacal rabbit, and neither he nor Carter fared well in those encounters, doing little for their respective images.

But of the three most recent VPs/wannabes, who is most like Elmer?

I deliberately left out the 'Breck Girl' John Edwards: for now, we're looking at potential shooters, not the potentially shot.

Al Gore certainly places high on the list. His voice pattern is discernibly similar. His physical demeanor isn't far off, save for the full head of hair and the beard, if he still has it (forever changing his image, that waskal). And for all his purported intellect, he says some of the stupidest things, as Elmer is wont to do. Where he loses points, at least in my subjective rating, is in his John Kerry style of being on both sides of something: he's opposed and supported gun rights. Just ask him. Don't expect the answer to make sense.

Dick Cheney has more of that Elmer look physically, save for the glasses. Personality-wise, his public demeanor appears consistent, though a bit more assertive. But his speech pattern isn't terribly close, and there's little doubt that -- unlike Elmer -- the wabbits, ducks or anything else of game variety never get the best of him (Cheney). Nor will lawyers from now on.

A message to Scooter Libby? Get real: if a message at all, it's more geared to David Gregory, who's far more in need of growing up, knocking off the 6 year old squallin', wipin' his nose and taking note here.

Finally, Joe Lieberman. A vp-almost. He has the look, especially if he'd don that silly hat Elmer wears. And the speech pattern. AND the voice inflection. He even has a level of contemptuous treatment from members of his own party, comparable to that Elmer gets from Bugs and Daffy. In fact, the more whacked-out members of his own party wish he was where Cheney is now, so he'd be easier to get rid of, politically.

And there you have it*. The envelope, please...drum roll... and the winner is.....Joe Lieberman!

While I'm off on one tangent, here's another quickie: note to conspiracy theorists: Joe Lieberman snuck down to Texas, masquerading as Dick Cheney, and shot the lawyer to get back into good graces with the freak show element of his party, by disgracing Cheney as (a) a loose cannon (b) a bad shot (c) a lawyer-hater.

When viewed through the prism of progressive logic, it's entirely plausible.

Hooha.

* what 'it' is depends on what your definition of 'it' is