Well, pol pundits have been using sports metaphors for years . . .

[ashling]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mitch-mcconnell-thinks-you-re-stupid

Mitch McConnell Thinks You’re Stupid

http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/congress-republicans--6.jpg

Imagine, for a moment, that Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll were to go on ESPN with an unusual announcement about Sunday's Super Bowl. He says his team will refuse to kick off to the Broncos unless the Broncos spot them a field goal in exchange.

"We're not just going to give the other team the ball unless we get something significant in return," imagine Carroll declaring. "It would be irresponsible for us to just give in to their request for the ball without getting at least three points attached to it." Carroll says that unless the condition is met, the Seahawks aren't even going to bother playing the game. They insist that if the Broncos won't sit down and negotiate, it'll be their own fault if the Super Bowl gets canceled.

How would sportswriters across the country respond? They'd probably say something like this: "That's just silly. That's not how the game works, and you know it. Either you're being stupid here, or you think we're stupid enough to let you get away with this." They wouldn't be afraid to take sides -- Carroll would come in for a lot of much-deserved criticism for putting the Super Bowl in jeopardy and insulting the fans' intelligence. Every time Carroll talked about this demand, the sports press wouldn't hesitate to note the absurdity of his position.

Shouldn't the political press weigh in when someone makes an equally absurd demand about something more substantive than a football game?

[world wide wally]

1. I'm afraid the Dems would give them the three points