18 Questions *From* Congressional Republicans

The Republican Party, as every schoolchild knows, has by now degenerated from a quasi-aristocratic affinity group of Rotarian strivers and upper-crust coupon-clippers, into a wild-eyed cult, fully marinating in denial and mendacity, in which the very rich exploit the very credulous for the purposes of promoting corporate dominance in the service of the re-distribution of wealth upward via the manipulation of "values."

Yeah, I know. Duh. Yawn. Check, please.

Still: How do they do it? How do they talk to themselves--which is to say, how do they butter up the indignant "patriots" and self-righteous "warriors for Christ" on whom they want to put the touch for some election-year dough? (Butter up, touch, dough: as always, it all comes down to bread.)

For some reason I happen to be on the mailing list of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Here, then, duly annotated, are the 18 (a sacred Hebrew number standing for LIFE!) questions they just sent me. In fact, so wide-ranging and important are these questions, I may have to address them in a two-part post. Because summarizing and condensing won't do them justice. I'm talking about an NRCC Every-Member Canvas "prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Ellis Weiner." Eat your hearts out, those of you who aren't me.

It goes without saying that filling in the questionnaire involves three steps: 1) Answer the questions; 2) Sign the form; 3) Return it with "the largest contribution you can make at this time." Can do. Behold:

1. Do I believe that "our nation's" official "position" on marriage should be that it is the legal union of a man and a woman, and not of two people of the same sex?

I wasn't aware that nations had positions. I thought they had laws. For this reason I answered "Not sure."

2. Following the "victory" of Congress and the president passing a law banning "partial-birth abortions," do I think "we" should increase "our" efforts to "revisit" Roe-v-Wade, which "has made it easier to kill unborn babies for over 30 years in our country"?

I thought this question missed the point, which is that it should be easier to kill already-born babies, a list of whose names I am willing to provide. Interestingly, all of them are Republicans! I answered "Not sure."

3. Do I want "us" to "concentrate even more on moral, family, and values issues during this session of Congress than we did on the previous one?"

Normally, yes (and I appreciate the bonus zeal in that use of "even more"). I want us to promote my morals, my family, and my values. But then I realized that I couldn't really name any actual Republican achievement concerning "values" in the previous session. The partial-birth abortion ban doesn't promote a value, it promotes a piece of dogma. (The purported "value" it supposedly sustains, that "life is sacred," is so often honored in the breach by this administration it hardly bears mentioning. If there's one thing that isn't sacred to Republicans, it's "life."). So I decided this was a trick question, and bailed out by answering "Not sure."

4. "Liberal Democrats," Mr. Ellis Weiner's canvas declares, "persist in attacking our Government's steps and strategies in fighting the War on Terror." Do I approve of "our" policies for seeking out and destroying terrorists and their organizations?

I cannot take any question seriously in which a Republican capitalizes "government." Republicans hate government. They brag about it. George W. Bush has made it his life's mission--which he has accomplished, thank you--to prove that government destroys, ruins, corrupts, or botches literally everything it attempts. Another trick question. Another "Not sure."

5. Do I feel that any inconvenience that may be caused by security measures at airports, train stations, and public buildings "is worth the hassle"?

Oh please. I wasn't born yesterday. I know, even if the intern who wrote this questionnaire doesn't, that "hassle" is a 1960's hippie word. I will not so easily be tricked into revealing that I was once a 1960's hippie. "Unsure of how I feel about this," is my answer, and you can quote me.

6. Do I support President Bush's "pro-growth approach" to solving our economic problems "by creating more jobs and creating a more receptive climate for risk-takers who start new businesses"?

Not any more. This "pro-growth approach" has led to what everybody including two of our three dogs is calling a recession. (The third, Chester, our foster Ridgeback, is still holding to his "wait-and-see" position.) I'd like the president to use what remains of his time in office to advance an anti-growth approach, to sort of use reverse psychology to maybe try and fool the economy. "Not really" was a tempting box to check, but in the end, because I'm not an economist, I answered "Not sure."

7. Do I support "our Republican insistence" that making the Bush tax cuts "PERMANENT" (all caps in the original) is the best way "to ensure that America's families, seniors, hard working job holders and small business owners can keep more of their hard-earned dollars?"

Could anything be more manipulative? This entire list of so-called beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts is a tissue of lies, provided you pronounce tissue as "tiss-you," in the fancy Brit manner. First, families don't earn dollars, hard-ly or otherwise. Dad earns dollars; Mom gets "house money" and kids get allowances, just as Adam and Eve and their kids (Cain and Abel) did in the Bible. Second, seniors, fine--but what about juniors, sophomores, and freshmen? I resent the classist bias. Third, the fate of small business owners is touching, and so forth, but what about our large business owners? What about our multi-national corporations? I feel strongly that any tax policy that omits them cannot be supported. Then again, I'm not sure how our government can tax multi-national corporations, since they're...you know. Multi-national. So I answered "Not sure."

8. "Support appears to be growing in Washington for an overhaul of the way we pay federal taxes." How would I prefer to see our tax laws completely changed: A national flat tax? By "abolishing the IRS altogether and creating a national sales tax applied only to items that are actually purchased"? Or keep the tax system the same?

I was actually not crazy about any of these options. The flat tax and the national sales tax both seem, not only unfair, but deliberately designed to be unfair, because everyone has to pay the same $3.89 for a gallon of milk, if by "milk" I mean "gasoline." This is cruel, heartless, and socially retrograde--all of which are classic Republican values I can certainly support, normally, but which would in this case adversely affect what I laughingly call my "lifestyle." However, those were the only three answers available. Therefore I wrote in and checked, in my own hand-drawn box, "Not sure."

9. Because "huge challenges" will arrive as the Baby Boomers soon begin retiring, how do I feel about the proposal, advanced by "many Republicans," that today's "younger workers be given a chance to invest a portion of their income into personal retirement plans"?

I'll tell you how I feel. I feel a combination of disbelief (that anyone can afford to retire), resentment (that today's younger workers will be exempt from funding my Social Security), and gratitude (that many Republicans care enough about me to address this issue). Put them altogether, they spell "I'd need to know more about it before making a decision."

Exhausting? Somewhat. But enlightening, no? And those are just the front nine. Watch this space later in the week for my review of the final nine questions, and join me as I decide how much money to send the National Republican Congressional Committee, and my method of payment. Oh, and to find out whether or not the return envelope is postage-paid.

Cross-posted at What HE Said

Comments

[CocteausTwin]

Loved the article Ellis. Funny and an enlightening glimpse ate the GOP's way of thinking and conducting business. I am looking forward to the "back nine."

[tstamp]

good stuff.

[elbzee]

OMG, thank you for sharing! LMAO. You're brilliant! (Btw, please tell Chester to get off the fence!)

[glaze]

Good stuff, but I got BETTER!
1) A Republican CENSUS FORM from that bastion of truth and fair play, the RNC. There was room enough to give long-hand answers to the questions. I answered them, alright!
And I included a clear request that my name be removed from their mailing list.
Naturally, this was answered by 2) a follow-up, thanking me for my contribution. I answered this one more succintly and again requested (demanded!) that they stop sending me their pitiful crap. (Are you ready? Can you guess?)
Yes, this time they pulled out the BIG GUNS. 3) A letter PERSONALLY signed by THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF! WOW! He thanked me for my contribution and always in character, he asked for more. But I did not fall even for this clever scheme, because I saw that all the words were correctly spelled and the syntax was understandable; I knew someone else wrote the letter, read it to him and he just signed it! Sent it back, amended and on THEIR dime.
If anybody's interested, I scanned #1. Copies available.

[WretchedEtcher]

Like they really care what you or anyone, not in the Republican leadership circle jerk, think. It's just a probe into best how to continue the manipulation.

[gorideabike]

These backwards statements are questions? Are they supposed to influence anyone who can retain saliva?
Pay attention people. This scurvy survey must be making some money or it would not be sent out to the faithful.

[MelFamy]

If the return envelope is indeed postage-paid, attach it to a brick, and send it back.

[HopefulAgainInTX]

Question number 8 is a taxpayer issue, and shouldn't become a partisan issue. The Fair Tax (national sales tax) is something Repugs and Democrats can both get behind. (www.fairtax.org)

Obama '08

[Dadam]

The Fair Tax is probably one of the stupidest ideas ever touted as viable. The fact that I-- who's hardly an economics expert-- can poke holes in this shows how stupid it is.

[jpopphan]

The so-called "Fair Tax" is a fraud and a clear attempt by the GOP to shift the tax burden away from the rich and place it squarely on the backs of the middle and lower classes. It is a regressive tax; it doesn't solve anything. Try again.

[Andydp]

Wait until you get "surveyed" by the Dove Foundation. I participated in one of their so called "surveys". Basically if you answered no to the questions you would sound like some Satanic Cult Libertine. If you answered yes, you would sound like some Stepford Fundamentalist from Jippip Iowa.

I also happen to know if they like your answers they will ask you if you want to receive information from their "corporate sponsors"

[egal]

Would it be inappropriate to send them a BILL (the non-political kind) for $3 trillion?

[drblack]

This is market research. They are trying to identify republican households so they can target them.
They are going to use the tired old strategy of divide and conquer and get out the base...except the base is now very tiny and America is divided into rational people who support Freedom, Prosperity,Rule of law and the Constitution and Republicans.

[LouisPWu]

Some mornings I get up wishing the Republicans would call and ask me those questions. Usually its mornings in which my lumbago is REALLY acting up.

[ScottChasWV]

Please tell me the return envelope is postage-paid. Glue that bad boy to a junked school bus.

[frank1569]

What the hell is a "hard working job holder?"

Is that the guy who clocks in for me while I skip out for a quick surf?

[elbzee]

hard working job holder = not elected to position

[hate2haggle]

Nice post. Recently I responded to a "pocket Constitution" give-a-way sponsored by our good friends at the Heritage Foundation and they, too, sent a very similar questionnaire. I don't believe I was as thoughtful as you in answering the questions, but I did, and sent them a transcript of a Countdown segment where Keith Olbermann explained how 9 of 10 Amendments to The Bill of Rights had been side-tracked by Cheney/Bush. I did ask their opinion of that and thanked them for the Pocket Constitution. Never heard back.

[Sciguy]

I got ***MY*** pocket Constitution from Kucinich - signed, no less.... :-)

[christia]

I got those same questions in a phone survey! So...I answered. The least I can do is try to skew their numbers.
Then I asked the pollster if she was embarassed to even be asking most of those questions, and if she wanted to know what I thought were the really important issues. I hope I managed to annoy one of them as much as they annoyed me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Now, because of your "not sure" answers, every neocon and neocon supporter reading your post is ware that you are not a true Republican.

To be a true Republican, you don't have to be right, but you do have to be certain.

[Sciguy]

Ah, what a wonderful lesson in how not to write good survey questions!

I used to get surveys like that - I forgot where they came from, but possibly from the Moral Majority - and I kept sending them back with the "wrong" answers. ("Should we continue bombing the crap out of countries whose weapons consist of angry camels, in order to keep the oil flowing and make bigger profits for our richest, most patriotic, most Christ-like supporters? Y / N" and I kept checking off the "N.") After a while, I didn't get them surveys no mo'.....

[itmaybetoolate]

Does one the second nine questions ask about extra toes or fingers?

[MissinAmerica]

How do these people sleep at night? Why are they so disconnected from reality? Why are they so blatantly leading the sheep, & why do the sheep follow, as the weather turns stormy & they're losing the farm?

Thanks for -trying- to make this light & fun. While I smiled here & there, it still turned my stomach.

I just don't get it.

[Sciguy]

Try reading Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?". It goes a long way in explaining how the far right conservative Repubs have managed to get so many people to vote against their own best interests. I still find it astonishing, though, that so many people can remain so misinformed and can continue to support the likes of Bush and his policies, as long as they can be convinced that their not-really-christian "family values" will be upheld ("upheld" = "forced onto everybody else").

[itmaybetoolate]

White people who have little and feel marginalized like to believe that they are in the same group as the rich white folks in the republiscum party. The rich white folks know this and play them for fools. They actually convince them to vote AGAINST their own interests most of the time with promises of freedom and riches to come. The evangelicals are, I believe, actually suffering from a form of delusional thinking. They believe they will win the jackpot when they die - they'll enter heaven, walk streets of gold and have a palace, a crown, and a throne. All they have to do is follow the bible, which, the republiscum have cleverly tied to conservative "values." Fighting the political fight will get them into heaven, not to mention helping to bringing about the rapture, final battle with satan and the 1,000 year rule of Jesus. This makes the powerless feel powerful.

[elbzee]

These comments are ringing a bell... reminds me of a speech in Philadelphia I heard recently. Something about bitterness & clinging. Of course, that speech inspired some lovely name calling. Despite it all, the man was RIGHT. No, not elitist, not racist, not divisive. CORRECT. The trick is how do we get through to these poor deceived folks?

[itmaybetoolate]

I wish I knew how to get through to them. I think we have a better chance right now - if we don't blow it. bush may have actually pulled the curtain back enough for lower middle class conservative whites to question if the republiscum really care about them. This may be our best chance for some time to come. I wonder if Obama can do it!

The evangelicals are a lost cause - they care about the end of the world and they believe it will happen in the middle east so the war mongering candidate will be their guy.

[starboymikey]

Ellis,

If these questions from the RNC are real, then no offence, but they are even funnier than you are. #3 is especially choice.

[Quaoar]

Ellis:
No questions about illegal immigration, supporting the war in Iraq, global warming denialism, or "teaching the controversy"? The questions are less right-wing than probably most Republicans in this country.

You must live in an area with a lot of "moderate" Republicans.

[JudgeCrater]

I.e., Republicans who can read.

[radiclib]

.
These kinds of propaganda points are the lifebood of Fox News Channel and the Radio Bullies of the right wing. Start with a false assumption and ask a loaded question based on that assumption. Even Republicans are sick of it. Their party has been hijacked by extremists and zealots. It's time for them to take it back. And they will. It might take a few years, but the right-wing will be purged and the moderates will bring that party back to the center.

Cheers!
.
.