They Pledge A Legion

Much is being made of the extent to which teabaggRs are being asked to sign various pledges -- and have willingly done so. The most well-known (to the extent that the average voter pays attention) is Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge. As I understand it, every one of the teabaggRs recently elected to Congress and every R presidential candidate has signed it.

Unlike political scientists and other smarty-pantseri, I don't see a problem.

What is a problem is Democrats and others who want to get all thinky on us, who would have us believe that running a government is hard, that it demands attention to detail and, for gods' sake, the ability to address novel situations as they arise. What's the point of sending people to Congress if they're just going consider new facts all the damn time. Get an idea, put it in writing, sign your name. Case closed. The whole trouble around here is that you can't count on anything any more.

The nice thing about pledges is they give all the power to one guy; in this case, Grover. It's a hell of a lot easier to keep your eye on one guy than seven hundred or whatever it is in Congress nowadays. Besides, this whole representative thing is greatly overrated; especially if they're just gonna go and try to learn stuff after they get in office. If the teabaggers have taught us anything, surely it's this: Get a plan, make it full of as few words as possible, and stick the hell to it. In the case of the economy, it's not as if there are a lot of moving parts. Cut taxes, you're good to go. George Bush showed us that. So did his dad. And Ronald Reagan.

So I say let's hear it for pledges. (I'm disappointed that not every candidate swallowed the teabag over the marriage vow thing. What's up with that wide stance? Okay, I get why Newt might have a problem, and you never know how many wives a Mormon might want to have. And if Rudy ever jumps in, well... So far, only Michelle "Sorry Precious I Have A Headache" Bachmann and Rick "Don't Google Me" Santorum have, but there's plenty of time. When the going gets tough, the tough sign pledges.) If enough legislators sign enough of them, they won't need to meet at all. We wouldn't have to watch C-Span any more, and we won't need to wonder what's going on. It'll have been laid out in advance, phoned in, inked. No one'll ever forget John Hancock, that's for damn sure.

I suppose maybe we'd have to go through the goddam hassle of voting for the people who write the pledges; but before we do, we should get them to sign a pledge that they won't write any more after they write the ones we just voted on. Or should it be that they pledge to keep writing them no matter what? But then we'd have to reelect them. Or would we?

Now you're just confusing me. What's the point of a pledge if you have to keep thinking?