I sat down ready to criticize the content of this L.A. Times article about the Contract with America, or Pledge for America, or whatever they’re calling the latest retread of 1994. And I still am ready — but I keep getting sidetracked by the horrible writing and editing.
Drawing on ideas favored by conservatives and stoked by “tea party” activists, House Republicans on Thursday will unveil a governing manifesto that calls for cuts in government spending, repeal of the new health care measure and a strict Constitutional test for every proposed law, according to a draft.
I deny that the Pledge’s ideas were “stoked” by the Tea Partiers — or that the Tea Partiers were stoked by the Pledge’s ideas. Dude.
The 21-page blueprint, called “A Pledge To America,” offers the most detailed picture yet of how Republicans would address national issues if they win a majority in the House this November, a likelihood prognosticators say is increasingly likely.
It’s always good when likelihoods are likely. Especially when the likelihood is increasingly likely.
The GOP plan quickly ignited a debate within conservative circles, as establishment Republicans embraced the agenda but activists complained that it did not go far enough, while omitting some of their key demands, such as a balanced budget amendment.
Never mind a balanced budget amendment. How about a goal of spending less than Bush?
You know, maybe the Tea Partiers’ ideas were stoked — if by “stoked” you mean sent up in flames.
The plan treads lightly on hot-button social issues, such as marriage and abortion, that have been mainstays of past GOP agendas but are less likely to motivate independent voters than economic questions this fall.
Hot-button social issues to plan: Don’t Tread on Me! Or, at least tread lightly on me.
My God, this is horrible writing. Another example: “less likely to motivate independent voters than economic questions this fall.” For some reason I feel like Ann Althouse saying this — but guys, it’s: “less likely than economic questions to motivate independent voters this fall.” You switched the phrases around, L.A. Times language experts, making your point very muddy. Were you trying to say economic questions are getting motivated? No? Then time for a rewrite. Skipping ahead a bit:
The proposals, the president said, mask the Republican Party’s intent to return to “exact same agenda” they pursued under former President George W. Bush’s administration.
Dontcha mean return to the exact same agenda?? Are we just randomly tossing articles overboard along with common sense?
“Like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high,” said Erik Erikson of the blog RedState.
Or, Erick Erickson, if you’re into correct spelling and such.
I give up. This paper apparently can no longer afford copy editors. Nor can they afford analysts who can tell the difference between the pledge writers and the people who actually want to do something about the size of (and the debt incurred by) the federal government.
Better writers and thinkers, please!