A drunk driver (Republican Party) runs over a three-year-old child (the American public) riding his tricycle on the sidewalk as the child turns left into his driveway at his mother's urging. She's six feet away.
The drunk goes into court with a staunch defense:
1. The kid was not a licensed driver.
2. He was not driving on the street.
3. He did not have proper equipment, including turn signals, tail lights and a bumper.
4. He did not give a hand signal that he was turning.
5. He was in the center of the sidewalk, prohibiting passing on either side.
6. His irresponsible parent was more than five feet away.
In addition:
1. The drunk committed a few minor offenses, but the accident would not have happened had the child not been in his way.
2. This is clearly a case of parental neglect and the violation of a number of traffic laws by the child.
Therefore, the fault here is the child's and the drunk should see the charges dismissed against him. The child should be prosecuted.
Plenty of people--including some who are kin to me and some who are friends--take the driver's side, because they are mad at what they see is a careless mother. So allow me to reconstruct your parable: The approach Mr. Cruz and his fellow tea-partiers are taking is perhaps more akin to a mother (the Tea Party hostess?) who throws her 3-year old on his tryke (our economy and that of the world) into the path of her husband's moving car (the driver/Congress) because she's tired of her hubby paying inadequate attention to things around the house.
ReplyDelete