First question: Is "rare show of bipartisanship" the dumbest phrase ever wrought by man or woman?
Second question: What prompts me from time to time to encourage my imaginary commenters to discuss these momentary but irrepressible convulsions of irritation known as blog posts, which they probably couldn't care less about and may not even understand? (assuming arguendo that these commenters existed at all):
(a) Unadulterated egomania, tempered by the distancing from normal life only achieved by the truly self-absorbed, and an endearing but pathetic tendency to adopt turns of phrase more meaningfully employed by bloggers with traffic on the scale of Texas/Canada rather than Uzbekistan/Wyoming.
(b) The maddening propensity of political reporters to seek compromise in every instance without respect to substance or principle, their habitual preference for coded cliché over concise transmission of useful information, their infuriating refusal to invert the pyramid (it’s supposed to be upside-down for a reason, goddammit), and their refusal to pick a fucking side once in a while.
(c) The New York Times is retarded.
(d) I am retarded.
(e) “Rare show of bipartisanship” is refreshing as the morning dew compared to the novel observation that “Mr. Bush’s approval ratings may be low, but the ratings of Congress are even lower.”
Turn your answers in when you're done and then you can leave early.
(Hint: It’s not D.)