Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans Begin Impeachment Investigation…
Mitch McConnell strides into the press conference, exuding that air of masculine confidence that made him, inevitably, a leader of men. He taps the microphone, clears his throat, and begins his presentation to the assembled reporters: “Good afternoon, everyone. I have an important announcement to make. In fact, one of historical significance.” Before the murmur in the room can die down, he declares, “Republicans of both houses of Congress are officially launching an impeachment investigation of the next Democratic President of the United States.”
After 10-15 seconds of stunned silence, the questions begin:
REPORTER 1: “But, the next Democratic President hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.”
MCCONNELL: “Neither had President Trump, when his impeachment investigation started. One example of the bipartisan nature of this investigation is how closely we are modeling it on the admirably effective techniques of our esteemed Democratic colleagues. After all, it’s all about the children.”
REPORTER 2: “Ummm… But shouldn’t you at least wait until you find out who the next Democratic President will be?”
MCCONNELL: “We feel that such procedural delays would be reckless. What if the next Democrat President ends up being black? Or female? Or gay? Or a member of some other oppressed group which hasn’t been discovered yet? This way, we can make it clear that this is not simply a partisan witch hunt. Since we don’t know who the next Democrat President will be, that makes it obvious that our motivations are pure. Besides, when you’re doing the work of the American People, typical Washington foot-dragging is unconscionable. Think of the children.”
< pause >
REPORTER 3: “Um, ok. So what, like, crimes are you accusing the, um, next Democratic president of? You know?”
MCCONNELL: “Let me be clear. We are troubled by the concerning pattern of concerns and troubles that that Democratic president will have been concerning us with, in addition to the troubling concerns that concern not just us, but the children. Really. It’s just awful. Very unconstitutional. And troubling.”
< pause >
REPORTER 4: “But isn’t this, like, attempting to overturn an election that hasn’t even happened yet? Don’t you believe in respecting the will of the people? Don’t you think elections are important?
MCCONNELL: “Republicans do believe in elections. Republicans believe that all elections are equally important. But we also respect the view of our esteemed Democratic colleagues, that if an election is won by somebody we don’t like, then that election is less equal than others. That’s what this is all about. Bipartisan respect for one another’s perspectives. Because if Democrats and Republicans can’t see eye to eye on basic concepts of democracy, then our country really is broken. This is about what kind of democracy we’re leaving to our children. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go do the work of the American people. Good day.”
After Mr. McConnell strides purposefully from the room, the reporters sit silently, staring at the opposite wall, for a long time. Their facial expressions suggest that they are all doing long division in their heads. After a while, one of them attempts to express the thought which all of them were trying to work out in their highly trained, political minds:
REPORTER 2: “Holy $%@#.”
< pause >
REPORTER 4: “Do you think it’s possible?”
REPORTER 1: “Is what possible? To impeach a president who’s not been elected yet?”
REPORTER 1: “No. Do you think it’s possible that Republicans are not as stupid as we’ve always presumed?”
Author’s note:
I like to think that I might be kidding about all this. But on the other hand, I think this approach might be very useful for Republicans. Few things highlight absurdity as well as the absurd. And it’s hard to make serious responses to ridiculous behavior.
Of course, it could backfire, I suppose.
But I don’t know. If I were Mitch McConnell, I’d be thinking about calling a press conference right about now.
Just a thought…
Published in General
Superb!
* * * * * * * *
[Edited for relevance…subsequent replies to my irrelevancy may lose their context ;-]
Dang. Sorry. I dictated this into my phone while watching football. After, um, a few beers, as you can probably tell. But I read through it, and though I picked up all the typos.
Where do I need an “all”?
Thanks for helping me out.
You aspiring satirists who are trying to learn how to tip off literal-minded readers that you’re spoofing, pay special attention to the first sentence. Adam Schiff could pick up a tip or two from the Doctor.
I love this Doc! Love it!
@drbastiat, this is just simply a masterful piece of satire and my hat is off to you for this fine example of witty writing. I do have one question for you though: how in the world were you able to cram so many of their tired old shopworn ragged cliches into one short piece like this? This one really made my day! Thanks!
Why aren’t you a gorgeous blonde, is what I’m asking.
I have been on record for impeaching the next Democrat POTUS. The fact they are Democrat guarantees corruption. We just need to find it.
If this is an example of a beer-soaked article, we are going to chip in an extra buck each with our dues to keep your cooler stocked.
(Re typo: as The Dread Pirate Robert might call it, it was “Nothing of any consequence.” But…substituting “all of them” for “each of them” in one place would restore agreement of number in subject and verb.
It was inappropriate of me to bring it up, and my synapses and I will bend every sinew to the task of eliminating such breaches in future, assuming that synapses have sinews. I’m no medical man. I am more of a knot man, and if there is enough demand from my fans I will publish an article on the class of knots called bends. In fact, if demand from my fans, or their existence, were a necessary condition of my writing any article on anything, none of you would have even noticed that I’m here, and if none of you have, it’s still true, theoretically.)
Dang. You’re right. Ok, I fixed it.
Thanks again.
Next time, PM him. Then he doesn’t have to take your added humiliation comments. That’s what I did last time . . . er. . .
Are grammatical construction errors now to be characterized as ‘typos’?
I beg your pardon.
Ok, thanks for correcting my grammatical construction error…
No biggie.
Although your discretion is appreciated, Susan.
On the other hand, thanks also, for pointing out that this mistake was not an isolated event.
Hmph…
I thought this was all real until this sentence.
That was so enjoyable I read it twice, the second time slower, just to savor the logic…..
Who are you? And why are you wearing those pink pajamas and elephant slippers?
Brilliant work of art, Doc.
We need to investigate the Chinese Collusion. Evidence? Well, we won’t know what evidence there is until the Special Council investigation is complete.
No, no, the proof is that they were elected by dead people with Chinese names in Chicago’s cemeteries.
Loved the repeated calls of “for the children”.
Humor has failed us here, but I can’t tell if it was mine (using a Comment to rib Doc about a little typo) or yours!
If I’m taking you seriously (about “humiliation”) when you are being funny…my bad.
No. No. No. I was teasing both of you, @markcamp. It was my bad. Or maybe we can both call ourselves bad. Whatever! ;-)
yaHOOOO!
(We are both good, it’s pretty clear. But if we have to choose one, then let’s get our stories together. You are very, very bad, Susan Quinn.)
Bob,
Good question.
The rule is, when Doc* commits a grammatical construction error, it is a typo.
For the rest of you, it’s a grammatical construction error, and you will need to be punished.
*There are a few other exceptions, but I don’t want to embarrass them by calling them out individually, plus, one of them has never made a grammatical construction error so far, and I don’t want to embarrass him or her by mentioning that.
I don’t want you all trying to speculate about who that individual is. It is not done, like talking about how much money people make.
Maybe he could announce the whistle-blower tipline, operating under the new hearsay rules….
Awesome! Dictating While Intoxicated! Dictating Under the Influence (of football and brewskis)!
Look, it is miles beyond Dragon NaturallySpeaking.
If only . . .
The Oxford comma was a nice touch.
Brilliant!
I’m wondering if we should make this like the filibuster rule, where you don’t actually have to perform a filibuster, you just say the word “filibuster!” and voila, the Senate is paralyzed. So I’m thinking that we should go even further than this satire proposes, and forgo the actual impeachment investigation and just say “You’re impeached!”. Every President could just be impeached as part of the swearing in ceremony. Then we can get it out of the way and wouldn’t have to listen to the insufferable pronouncements of talking heads for years on end.
Bonus, Doc. Yer in the bonus round now.
Well done.