Via our friend Rob Schilling we learn that at a recent candidate forum in Charlottesville, Democratic congressional candidate John Douglass had a few choice words for anti-tax maven Grover Norquist. Schilling transcribes the retired General’s remarks thusly:
Well first, I’m gonna to ask everybody in this audience, you know, ‘who the hell is Grover Norquist?’ [audience laughter] You know, I mean, isn’t that amazing that some right wing jerk like him can, can threaten the very security of this country by goin’ around and, and how gullible are these politicians that would sign up to some, uh, jerky Washington guy’s uh, phony-baloney pledge? You don’t make pledges to guys like him. You know, your pledge is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the people that it stands for. And that’s what our members of Congress should be doing. [audience applause] And uh, you know, um, uh, you know, these guys have gotten us in, and some women, too, have gotten us into these wars that they didn’t pay for, okay, and run up the deficit. And, uh, they’ve kicked the can down the stream, kicked the can down the stream, under this uh, Grover Norquist, uh, pledge. And you know, these Republicans, they’re scared to death to call, uh, Grover Norquist names, you know. But, uh, hey, Grover, you wanna record this? I don’t give a damn if you, what you think about me, so, uh, you know he’s gonna be against me either way, so um, uh, you know. And I just think a pledge to someone like Grover Norquist is obscene, and you’ll never catch me doing that.
The new civility…it’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Though, to be fair to Mr. Douglass, I’ve heard Norquist called far worse. By people on the right (though these folks, being stout and fearless men of principle, almost never do so on the record).
Beyond the Groverisms in Mr. Douglass’ remarks, we do have to ask whether all the blame for Congress’ almost congenital inability to restrain its spending urges is due to Norquist’s no tax hike pledge. That’s rather too convenient, and ignores the old saying that when you point the finger of blame, three fingers point back at you.
Douglass’ statement also leaves open the obvious question: does he believe tax hikes are necessary to get those poor, sodden cans out of the stream? If so, which taxes should be raised and by how much?
If he refuses to answer, with specifics, then we can only assume that he is just another ‘phony-baloney,’ would-be pol.
