I am not advocating punching babies, but I do like to take ridiculous political positions to their most dramatic (il)logical conclusion. I have heard comedians refer to a given politician's low poll numbers as "baby-punching" numbers, referring to a concept that a certain percentage of people would support an elected official even if he/she were to punch a baby on TV. For example, it seems that Ohio Governor Taft's "baby-punching number" seems to be about 12.
Does Bush have a baby-punching threshold? More (w/ poll) on the flip.
This morning, according to
this diary, Judge Richard Posner has interpreted W's illegal actions as a sign that the law is not loose enough:
Posner laments that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as currently written, "is too restrictive" because that law "makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities."
Does Posner explain, though, why it is important to spy on U.S. citizens who are not terrorists or engaged in hostile activity? Do Americans have any idea what is really going on? Do these people (who will scream that salesmen calling them at home during dinner are a violating their privacy) realize that the NSA is not just spying on terrorists, but may be opening up the hard drive on their home computer while they sleep? But let's get back to the baby.
If W were to punch a baby on live TV, would the, oh let's say 25% of the public (W's 'baby-punching' number?) then be clamoring for a law allowing baby-punching? It seems that no matter what this Prez does, his supporters jump up to scream how there is nothing wrong with it. Would Rush start advocating that baby-punching should be required by law? Would we have a baby-punching frenzy across America?
So let's postulate on what various right-wingers would say if Bush punched a baby.