Thursday, November 29

The Turnips Of Wrath

Stuart Stevens, "Mitt Romney. A good man. The right fight." November 28

Aisha Harris, "Glenn Beck puts 'Obama in Pee Pee', calls it art". November 28

INTRODUCTIONS, first: Stuart Stevens was the Romney campaign's chief strategist; Aisha Harris writes about teevee for Slate.  And both are brave enough to admit it.

Oh, look, hors d'oeuvres!
Glenn Beck has said and done many outlandish things in his career as a provacateur,

"Provocateur" being the alternate spelling of "guy who proved too crazy to be taken seriously, even on FOX." "Provacateur", meanwhile, is how people who take Glenn Beck seriously, and turn off Spell Check, spell "provocateur".
but yesterday he may have topped even his most clownish past antics by unveiling—and putting up for sale—a new work of art: “Obama in Pee Pee.”

Sorry, but nothing Glenn Beck, provacatuer, does will ever top things Glenn Beck did when he thought he was being taken seriously.
Brandishing his best—but still terrible—PepĂ© Le Pew impression,

Equating "art" with "snooty French accent"? Comedy genius. What a porvocoture!
Beck informed the audience that his own “specially brewed Country Time” in a mason jar would sell for the asking-price of $25,000,

Overpriced Art! Stop, you're killing me by proxy proovication!
The presentation, while infantile, is also surprisingly amusing.

Like Truck Nutz. Or, more accurately, like Truck Nutz fifteen years from now.
Beck’s job—like that of the one kid in elementary school who would incessantly repeat what other people said just to get a rise out of them—is to provoke as much outrage from the left as possible.

Don't most people get fired if they don't do their jobs?

Christ, lady, you should pardon the expression, if Glenn Beck had been chosen to deliver the Republican keynote address in Tampa "the left" would have erupted in spontaneous parades.

But let's just mention a couple things here, because we should. Sure, it's Slate, and there's a premium paid (for some reason) for being completely off the rails about anything. But, y'know, in 139 words there you said "outlandish" "provacateur" "clownish" "best, but still terrible" "while infantile" "surprisingly amusing" and "provoke" again. If you're that concerned about your reputation, then rethink this commitment you have to eating regularly. Or go work someplace real. Otherwise, you might consider just writing the damn story straight, then mentioning that Beck has a long, long, long way to go before the sum of the "provocations" in his "career" begin to match the outrage over Piss Christ. Or The Last Temptation of Christ. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or the Obama's fist bump. Or the Ten Commandments, Quemoy and Matsu, or the fluoridation of water. Or, you know, blackness.

By the way, maybe Slate should have spent those virtual column inches defending Country-Time ™ Lemonade.

Anyway, who's up for some post-election analysis of the Republican party? 'Bout time this got some attention:
Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

Nothing like starting off the self-assessment by complaining about the ex-wife. Okay, you say "self-loathing", I say "wholesome and honest disagreements, which may result in endless quibbling but beat the hell out of being wedded to a bunch of backwoods religious maniacs who're never satisfied, and who force you to walk a tightrope over Shit Falls."
I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians.

Or your base. You guys just can't ever, ever, give up on the Elites routine, can you?
That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

True, except for the fact that everybody knew he'd win, that he had the most money and the closest thing to a competent staff, and was the top runner-up still standing from 2008. Which is precisely who you guys tend to nominate. Other than that, complete surprise. I figured Cain had it in the bag.
Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

Oh, if only he'd found sixty-five fucking Electoral votes! We should'a added six more states, or somethin'.

And for cryin' out loud, every other Republican led the race at some point---that includes three who gave every indication of being too fucking loony to lower their underwear before taking a dump--because of the electrifying dislike Mitt Romney inspired among voters.
In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did.

Hell, he has more money than the Republican party does. And his pals want Republican tax policy without Republican social lunacy. Writ large, anyway. They'll settle.
He trounced Barack Obama in debate.

Well, y'know, once. An occasion most people attributed to the President's poor showing than anything Romney did. In fact, his "trouncing" performance would have been food for the buzzards if it had been evaluated on its own terms.
He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

Yeah, it was a brave performance, all right.
When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.

Right, by explaining how different his actual program would turn out to be from Ryan's, in the event he ever got around to outlining it. Man, that political intelligentsia, though, I'm with you there. Totally wrong about Ryan's effect on the election. Have you brought him out of hiding, yet?
The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

It's gonna be rational, fact-based, and free from plutocrat piracies? Thanks, Mitt.

(By the way, remind me again about what "Seniors" said about Social Security and Medicare on election day. There seems to be some static on the line.)
On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Who knew there were enough Average Americans to swing an election?
That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters.

Which, according to Mitt, meant those earning $250,000.
While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

Then his mistake was in not running against John McCain. [/rimshot]  Oh, wait, he did.
The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

In my world, the definition of "back-handed compliment" is "something some dick of a sore loser spouts when he thinks people are listening."
But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004.

You could'a won 'em both--for real or by Court intervention--and you still would have lost, genius.
Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012.

If this isn't the stupidest notion I've ever heard repeated in politics I'm forgetting something. The idea that you could cherry-pick a winning electoral slate, then count up the votes so you win by one, just beats everything.
Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

Question: is there some point at which I should just stand astride History and say "These are Mitt Romney's values"? Or is that just everything he ever said, much of it contradicted by something else he said?
In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. /blockquote>

So does that show where D-level celebrities try to dance.
He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

Yes, America will never forget his cluelessness about actual food, his neatly combed hair, and his cheerful offer to throw half of his fellow citizens under a bus and run them over.
There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities.

Y'know, I like to sit back and remember my illusory childhood sometimes, too.
Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Good point. How many educated African Americans are there, even? And next time the media won't be conflicted, and will call a spade a spade.
Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.

That close to Miss Congeniality. You lacked only the congeniality. And the women.
When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies,

Or voting.
it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

Please, don't ever change.

11 comments:

Rick Massimo said...

"On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income."

I just absolutely cannot imagine where anyone got the idea that the Romney campaign didn't give a damn about non-rich people.

Anonymous said...

Riley, I howled on this one. The comments from Stevens or Harris (they were so bad I lost track) are as tone deaf as the guy on Fox who Jon Stewart dinged/raked over the coals for questioning how ungrateful those dead Bangladeshi textile workers were because, "Well, they had a job, didn't they?"

Joe said...

So, it turns out the bottom income block has enough people in it to swing the election.

Republicans should have thought of that when they were deciding to stick the whole country in low-paying service jobs.

heydave said...

Thanksgiving festival continue!
The laughs write themselves sometimes.

Karen Goldner said...

I bow to the master.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

All that, and the lieberal-biased media has named Mittens "The Least Influential Person of 2012".

Any press is better than no press, though, amirite?
~

Anonymous said...

So: First they cut our pay, health benefits, and pensions to the point we are forced to rely on government aid. Then they promise to cut the government aid. Then they expect us to vote for them because (mumble, mumble) freedom something. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

Rugosa

KWillow said...

True, they cut our pay and benefits, but in return we get Independence! Self-reliability! FREEDOM! Its only They, sitting on their billions of unspendable dollars, who are wearing (golden) chains of financial security and good health. They do it for Us.

satch said...

So, Glenn Beck provokes "liberal outrage", huh? Why do these idiots keep mistaking eye rolling, heavy sighing, and twirling your index finger in circles next to your ear for "outrage"?

Anonymous said...

"Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire."

My, that certainly is different from what I heard from Republicans in 2000 and 2004. You know, when anyone who voiced opposition to The Greatest Preznit Evar was undoubtedly a fool, probably a faggot, and maybe a traitor. Remember when people said Al Gore and John Kerry might have had a good idea or two, even if they didn't win?

Yeah, me neither.

Anonymous said...

First: "Who knew there were enough Average Americans to swing an election?" Best line of the week. Really.

Second: [paraphrasing] 'Romney was not popular with the Elites, but won a majority of votes among those who make more than $50K/year.' How exactly can one win lots of votes amongst a group that does not approve of one? Or, how many "Elites" make less than $50K/yr?

Braynstorme