<p>In the Democrat Party rebuttal to President Trump’s border security address last night, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer proved that there isn’t necessarily strength in numbers. Why the pair (and Democrat Party as a whole) thought that two…two…two political heads are better than one and would better convey their argument against the President’s version of more effective border security, rather than presenting one speaker alone, is a mystery.</p>
<p>Were the Democrats democratic in this decision, taking any input at all from the membership on the best way to present the party line? Was there actual consensus on this, that tag-teaming the appearance was indeed the best way to go? Or was it the <em>only </em>way to go, taking into account the egos of the two involved?</p>
<p>It started at first as a visual trainwreck, as soon as the TV producer yelled “Action!”</p>
<p>Okay, they don’t actually yell “action” for Capitol Hill news coverage, but you would never know it by their expressions. They looked like two embarrassed high school students nervously smiling after being voted King and Queen of the Prom.</p>
<p>So we’re greeted by this image of two awkward, elderly teenagers squeezed behind a podium built for one, shoulder pressing shoulder. Not very relaxed. Not very sensible. And sadly, kind of reminiscent of overcrowded classrooms, with students forced to uncomfortably share a desk.</p>
<p>From time to time, it appeared that someone would cue the music, and they would tap dance while switching sides. Nancy on the right. Chuck on the left. Cue music. Now, Nancy on the left. Chuck on the right. Maybe even juggle lit torches or swords between them, or share a chocolate milkshake placed in the center of the podium, giggling cheek to cheek, sipping from two straws. (Remember that prom?)</p>
<p>You had to let your imagination run wild, because watching it as is was just too ridiculous. What a way to start the “show,” but the show must go on!</p>
<p>Who orchestrated this? Couldn’t they find a second podium, or a wider podium? Were they trying to appear close and united as a party?</p>
<p>Or did they want to appear thrifty and fiscally responsible, chanting, “No funding for podiums! Build friendships, not podiums! People don&#8217;t kill people, podiums do!” (Democrats get confused at times.)</p>
<p>I just don’t know, but first impressions count, and first impressions are based on appearance. In this context, it was a big fail, with the web being flooded today with Photoshopped images of the two in ridiculous, insulting parodies.</p>
<p>And their actual rebuttal?</p>
<p>They denied there’s a crisis at the border, despite daily images of thousands trying to cross illegally through Tijuana. They lied about the security dangers of unvetted immigration. They denied the costs of unlimited low skilled immigration, legal or not (education, housing, food stamps, medical costs, etc.), despite all of the data. And the craziest lie of all, that a wall simply wouldn’t work, as if they favored border security in the first place.</p>
<p>It was a regular <em>Who’s On First.</em> Pure comedy, but in this case, comedy at its worst.</p>