There are moments in life when the underlying ridiculousness of the American electoral system becomes painfully obvious.
And how appropriate it takes a chicken to illustrate it.
As you might know, Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sue Lowden made an unfortunate comment a few weeks ago when she remarked that we should allow doctors to go back to the barter system, where people would trade things like chickens for health care.
Lowden's idea is not necessarily a bad one, but there are so many more issues these days that make the idea untenable: would doctors have to pay taxes on the items bartered?; could you bring a chicken to a doctor's office?; who would set a price list for services rendered - one chicken equals a flu shot? It was an ill-thought out remark.
The real problem was using a chicken as an example, of course. Democrats gleefully used every chicken metaphor and joke they would think up to throw at Lowden, and it hurt her in the polls.
But now, in the interests of 'fairness,' Nevada's electoral commission has ruled that people cannot wear chicken costumes to the polls because it would be an obvious advocacy statement against Lowden. (Democrats have attended Lowden events wearing the costumes.)
OK, that seems kosher I suppose. So people can't wear chicken costumes because it might affect the outcome of an election.
Meanwhile, a couple of months before Lowden made her infamous chicken remark, the Supreme Court, in the Citizen's United case, a ruling overseen by the court's conservative majority, overturned decades-old law and ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want during elections season. That's free speech, the court said.
OK, so let me get this straight.
A multinational corporation can spend millions trying to influence the public against a particular candidate or party, and that's fine, but if you wear a chicken costume to a polling station, that's going too far?
America. Land where anything is possible. Even really, really stupid bad things.
Comments