The Undead

I’ve often expressed my distaste for the Clintons: how anyone in his (or, yes, even her) right mind could want to send those Travellers back to the White House is beyond my comprehension. Lots of others feel the same way, of course; with a hat tip to our friend the Stiletto, whose pointed insights and piercing commentary we recommend to all, here is a piece by Andrew Sullivan that sums it all up nicely.

Related content from Sphere

5 Comments

  1. Justin K. says

    Uh oh, I have a sudden dread. You’ve referred to them as “Travellers.” We tried for years to be shed of them. We finally figured out a means. Count them as Arkansas’ “gift to the Nation.” (Notice where I do not capitalize.)

    We’d prefer they stay right where they are. By referring to them as “Travellers”, we’re afraid they might get ideas. You have them, please keep them up there.

    JK

    Posted March 12, 2008 at 10:42 am | Permalink
  2. Malcolm says

    Talk about a no-win situation: keep them here in New York or send them back to Washington…

    Posted March 12, 2008 at 10:47 am | Permalink
  3. Justin K. says

    I have been discussing your apellation of “Travellers” with some of my associates. We may have come up with a solution to both of our problems. Perhaps New Yorkers might begin referring to them as “Canadians.”

    It has been rumored that Canada’s political system has been somewhat efficient and their politicians are actually cordial to one another. And so far as we have been able to gather on our hillbilly internet, Canada has nothing like the Constitutional Amendment which would bar Bill from seeking long-term employment as Head of State. (We realize the irony of of the title but that might be just enough to persuade him of the desireability of making a move further north.)

    This would give Hillary something to do as well, (NAFTA treaty negotiations). The only potential problem that we see may result: is that if we do not exercise some degree of caution that Canada doesn’t see through our machinations; they might consider a preemptive invasion. But should that occur we might be able to persuade them by pointing out that we did not call them Canadians: we meant Cubans. Fidel has retired and Bill could be El Presidente’ for 50 years there. This actually might work out better ’cause the US Government is already geared up for animosity with a country no bigger’n Rhode Island.

    Talk it over amongst yourselves and let us know. We consider that we may have done New York wrong by placing our bad pennies into your circulation.

    JK

    Posted March 12, 2008 at 11:48 am | Permalink
  4. Malcolm says

    Canada, Cuba: all fine. Anywhere but here.

    Posted March 12, 2008 at 11:52 am | Permalink
  5. Justin K. says

    This will be the last of the day from the hills but my associates have left and I felt a need to come clean. Before they all left we discussed the possibility that your State would soon figure out what Alan Dershowitz was wondering on Charlie Rose last night. “Why and How?”

    New Yorks’ most recent embarrassment was very likely caused by Arkansas not practicing “due diligence” in considering unforeseen consequences. We do not want New York to sue Arkansas for negligence. It can and usually is claimed by every Mother that when her son has shoplifted from Wal-Mart or whatever that the son was “done in by bad influences.” Such is very likely the case.

    We realize that your governor would never have done that if we had not sent our governor to your state, via Washington DC. We thought that an extended stay in DC would “cure” him but unfortunately, we erred. Our apologies. But we never counted on a hillbilly gub’ner being able to influence a sophisticated governor.

    We apologize for the inconvenience. Please don’t sue, we only have IOU’s in our treasury.

    JK

    Posted March 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm | Permalink