• Jeez Louise, it's Politico! It's Maggie Haberman! It's "Does Sarah Palin have a second act?" Which, if nothing else, underlines the need for arts education and adult mathematics competency testing.
Sixteen hundred and sixteen words on the question of the Half-Term Half-Wit's political future. Some of which come from Bill Kristol, others from Newt Gingrich; some of which allude to the supposed power of her Golden Endorsement, none of which actually bother to note that her track record underperformed flipping a coin. None happened to note anything about her record as a political performer on her own, nor the now-evident downside to appearing even stupider than your audience in pursuit of national office.
Naturally, "mama" and "grizzly" snuck in.
Mags? Sarah Palin is an act. Or, if she's to be likened to the theatre, she's a series of one-hour After Home School Specials, all of which ran out of material after twenty minutes. There's no reason to go on for fifteen-hundred words just because you can't say "Shit."
• Yeah, so Rob Portman now tolerates the gays because he's just realized he's related to one. The response--that Rob Portman's soaked up a lot of tax dollars representing a lot of parents with gay sons--is obvious, but it ought to be noted that Portman didn't just oppose legalizing same-sex marriage; he went out of his way to block adoptions and partner benefits. Which suggests that before his own issue changed his mind he didn't really believe gays were human, let alone someone's child.
• "Republicans are Divided on Proper Role for U.S. Abroad." Which is demonstrated by the fact that three of them "articulated this in different ways."
I never thought I'd say this, but, y'know, the 2016 race cannot start early enough to suit me. Get Rand Paul on the hustings now, please.
Showing posts with label Palin 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin 2016. Show all posts
Friday, March 15
Friday, March 8
He's Like A Taller, Younger Mitch Daniels, But Now He's Got A Steet-wise Latino Sidekick
Joe Scarborough and Jeffrey Sachs, "Deficits do matter". March 7
Anna Palmer, "New club's not your dad's Young Republicans". March 8
SOME time ago, a month, maybe (I don't know, because I don't really care), Paul Krugman pantsed Joe Scarborough, probably on Morning Joe, if that's still on. And Scarborough, whose major rhetorical limitation in this was, and remains, the fact that he can't seem to understand the argument, did not take it well. Ranted on his show, if that's still on, ranted in Politico, then agreed to a "debate" with Krugman hosted by Charlie Journamalism Rose, or, as I like to call it, A Bridge Too Far. By all accounts, by which I mean the one or two I happened across, Krugman was knowledgeable, Scarborough was a fluffed-up entertainer, and the result was sorta anticlimactic, because, well, we already know the answer, and the whole point of the exercise is to get some moron to admit he's a moron when his solitary purpose is to avoid admitting he's a moron. Or, put another way, another public affairs program.
And now, three days later, The Ol' Ladykiller's rounded up an Economist co-author to help squeeze out another 900 anti-Krugman words. And the result, as you might expect, reads like a combination introduction to the chapter on Keynes in a freshman econ text written by an anti-Keynesian, and a megachurch hymnal.
Go read it, if you hafta. Meanwhile, the problem is not that Joe Scarborough can't distinguish between the theoretical and the hypothetical, or tell either from apodictic certainty, or stop throwing shit at Paul Krugman; the problem isn't that his party is in the same dire intellectual straits it's been in since 1964. The problem is that it's slowing beginning to dawn on them.
And the bigger problem, of course, is that they're the ones who get to solve it.
Scarborough's vote doesn't count any more, so he can actually look at The Defense Budget now instead of just rubber-stamping it. This, in practice, means squinting at the USA pie-chart and noticing that some portion of it is dedicated to Defense:
So I guess in retrospect it's too bad we didn't choose to pay for those wars as we went along, huh?
Th' fuck did Medicare get in there? Just kiddin'. I know how it got in there.
So, okay, uh, for the record that's an offer of 1) "spending" to be "reduced", 2) wars to be ended and no-longer paid for, and some 3) Reshaping Our Forces to Face the 21st Century Threat talk, before we headed straight for the pocketbooks of the Poor. It's sorta like hearing your prom date say "I guess tonight means we should talk about my surrendering my virginity to you. And whether we should wait five or six years. Or whether it should be more, like the ten years it'll take you to fully accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior, to my satisfaction." And saying to yourself, Welp, sounds like the best deal I'm likely to hear.
These will qualify as Big Ideas when you put numbers to them. And when you decide between "a military comprising boots-on-the-ground, solid employment and advancement opportunities", and "a bunch of programmers running US foreign policy and makin' shit blow up". Whadda we do with twelve aircraft carriers, Mr. Post-Cold War? Which military bases are we closing, which overseas presence reducing or eliminating? Will the last man leaving the Air Force kindly turn out the lights? Otherwise, you're Just Another Post-Wingnut Wingnut showin' the Rubes the Genuine Ruby first. Fuck you. You fucks know Defense cuts won't happen, and that the "Social Entitlements" side of the ledger--and which side introduced that bit of Luntzian disintel into the discussion, hmmmm?--has but a single brake, namely, the point where the peasants get the torches and pitchforks. What's the latest AEI over/under on that happening by 2050, Joe? I know y'all know.
The Republican party is not the only reason our Defense spending has continued along at WWII levels since, well, WWII. But the Right is historically the site where International Paranoia gets shoveled into Forge of Freedom. And if there's a major reason why we're "still in Cold War Mode" it's the cosy perpetuation of expensive weapons systems that had no other reason to exist. Everybody screamed about the pain of the Peace Dividend, but it was the Right that screamed loudest, and two Republican presidents who ignored it for a decade, or until George Herbert Walker Bush realized he was in a reelection fight. Here's what they accomplished. Maybe Professor Sachs will explain what those steep slopes there mean.
Been sayin' this since you were still kissing that Reagan poster over your bed every night: I'll believe it when you cut it. I'll believe it when you fucks put serious proposals on the table, and vote on them, up or down, with the lights on. You wouldn't face Social Security at the height of Reagan's Ku-fu grip on our polity; you've tried, ever since he backed down, to fuck everyone out of it without their noticing. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. Put up actual proposals, and vote on 'em. You control the House. Start th' fucking process. Let the Senate take the heat for refusing to liberate everyone under 55 from Social Security. Let the President veto your health care solutions. You've been talking about this shit for thirty years. The solution to the problem is for your side to own it.
Y'know, I usta think the problem was you doubling down every time you lost a bet. Now I think it's that you see a Permanent "Conservative" Supermajority everywhere you look, and after Reagan there's only a few of you who understand enough science to know what "red shift" means, and none of them's willing to admit it.
And now that Rand Paul's the 2016 nominee, really, no shit, we're beyond asking whether you people can learn from anything, and on to the question of whether you'll ever learn to modulate the voices in your head. Did you happen to notice that two-year slogfest that ended in Mitt Romney? You wanna start earlier now? Rand Paul vs. Rick Santorum, the winner to face Marco Rubio?
I have no idea who assigned this. I'm 59, and I honestly had no idea there was that sort of Evil loose in the world. I suspect hazing might be involved, or they just enjoy making each other eat disgusting things at Politico for sport. But, really, no. Cellphones and a willingness to tolerate gays and blahs is not the Answer. Sorry, the only Answer left for Republicans is to actually begin looking for an Answer. As in, for real, not actually looking for some PR gimmick that works for a few weeks. Blame your parents.
Ah, the entrepreneurial wing of the party.
Did you do that on purpose, or was that the actual top of the list?
Ah, the Daniels Brigade.
Look, kids--boys--take whatever you didn't really spend of that 100 large, get yourself a nice hotel, and spend a day--one day--examining your own beliefs, the central tenets of Republicanism, the political realities outside New England, and the substantive arguments of a theoretical Rand Paul candidacy. Do it seriously and honestly. Because, trust me on this, someday you'll wish you had something to look back on and laugh about.
Anna Palmer, "New club's not your dad's Young Republicans". March 8
SOME time ago, a month, maybe (I don't know, because I don't really care), Paul Krugman pantsed Joe Scarborough, probably on Morning Joe, if that's still on. And Scarborough, whose major rhetorical limitation in this was, and remains, the fact that he can't seem to understand the argument, did not take it well. Ranted on his show, if that's still on, ranted in Politico, then agreed to a "debate" with Krugman hosted by Charlie Journamalism Rose, or, as I like to call it, A Bridge Too Far. By all accounts, by which I mean the one or two I happened across, Krugman was knowledgeable, Scarborough was a fluffed-up entertainer, and the result was sorta anticlimactic, because, well, we already know the answer, and the whole point of the exercise is to get some moron to admit he's a moron when his solitary purpose is to avoid admitting he's a moron. Or, put another way, another public affairs program.
And now, three days later, The Ol' Ladykiller's rounded up an Economist co-author to help squeeze out another 900 anti-Krugman words. And the result, as you might expect, reads like a combination introduction to the chapter on Keynes in a freshman econ text written by an anti-Keynesian, and a megachurch hymnal.
Go read it, if you hafta. Meanwhile, the problem is not that Joe Scarborough can't distinguish between the theoretical and the hypothetical, or tell either from apodictic certainty, or stop throwing shit at Paul Krugman; the problem isn't that his party is in the same dire intellectual straits it's been in since 1964. The problem is that it's slowing beginning to dawn on them.
And the bigger problem, of course, is that they're the ones who get to solve it.
Scarborough's vote doesn't count any more, so he can actually look at The Defense Budget now instead of just rubber-stamping it. This, in practice, means squinting at the USA pie-chart and noticing that some portion of it is dedicated to Defense:
Military spending can be reduced, and our decade-long wars can be brought to an end.
So I guess in retrospect it's too bad we didn't choose to pay for those wars as we went along, huh?
The Pentagon should move beyond a defense strategy based on a Cold War threat that no longer exists. Americans also know that costs for Medicare...
Th' fuck did Medicare get in there? Just kiddin'. I know how it got in there.
So, okay, uh, for the record that's an offer of 1) "spending" to be "reduced", 2) wars to be ended and no-longer paid for, and some 3) Reshaping Our Forces to Face the 21st Century Threat talk, before we headed straight for the pocketbooks of the Poor. It's sorta like hearing your prom date say "I guess tonight means we should talk about my surrendering my virginity to you. And whether we should wait five or six years. Or whether it should be more, like the ten years it'll take you to fully accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior, to my satisfaction." And saying to yourself, Welp, sounds like the best deal I'm likely to hear.
These will qualify as Big Ideas when you put numbers to them. And when you decide between "a military comprising boots-on-the-ground, solid employment and advancement opportunities", and "a bunch of programmers running US foreign policy and makin' shit blow up". Whadda we do with twelve aircraft carriers, Mr. Post-Cold War? Which military bases are we closing, which overseas presence reducing or eliminating? Will the last man leaving the Air Force kindly turn out the lights? Otherwise, you're Just Another Post-Wingnut Wingnut showin' the Rubes the Genuine Ruby first. Fuck you. You fucks know Defense cuts won't happen, and that the "Social Entitlements" side of the ledger--and which side introduced that bit of Luntzian disintel into the discussion, hmmmm?--has but a single brake, namely, the point where the peasants get the torches and pitchforks. What's the latest AEI over/under on that happening by 2050, Joe? I know y'all know.
The Republican party is not the only reason our Defense spending has continued along at WWII levels since, well, WWII. But the Right is historically the site where International Paranoia gets shoveled into Forge of Freedom. And if there's a major reason why we're "still in Cold War Mode" it's the cosy perpetuation of expensive weapons systems that had no other reason to exist. Everybody screamed about the pain of the Peace Dividend, but it was the Right that screamed loudest, and two Republican presidents who ignored it for a decade, or until George Herbert Walker Bush realized he was in a reelection fight. Here's what they accomplished. Maybe Professor Sachs will explain what those steep slopes there mean.
Been sayin' this since you were still kissing that Reagan poster over your bed every night: I'll believe it when you cut it. I'll believe it when you fucks put serious proposals on the table, and vote on them, up or down, with the lights on. You wouldn't face Social Security at the height of Reagan's Ku-fu grip on our polity; you've tried, ever since he backed down, to fuck everyone out of it without their noticing. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. Put up actual proposals, and vote on 'em. You control the House. Start th' fucking process. Let the Senate take the heat for refusing to liberate everyone under 55 from Social Security. Let the President veto your health care solutions. You've been talking about this shit for thirty years. The solution to the problem is for your side to own it.
Y'know, I usta think the problem was you doubling down every time you lost a bet. Now I think it's that you see a Permanent "Conservative" Supermajority everywhere you look, and after Reagan there's only a few of you who understand enough science to know what "red shift" means, and none of them's willing to admit it.
And now that Rand Paul's the 2016 nominee, really, no shit, we're beyond asking whether you people can learn from anything, and on to the question of whether you'll ever learn to modulate the voices in your head. Did you happen to notice that two-year slogfest that ended in Mitt Romney? You wanna start earlier now? Rand Paul vs. Rick Santorum, the winner to face Marco Rubio?
 |
| Odds any of the above has actually seen Kentucky: 1 in 3. Odds that any who did were 1) sober and 2) not at Churchill Downs on Derby Day: 1 in 8,000. |
In the 2012 cycle, Concord 51 raised about $116,000 but gave just $10,900 to federal candidates.
Ah, the entrepreneurial wing of the party.
They supported Mitt Romney’s presidential bid and six congressional candidates, including Illinois Rep. Robert Dold, Hayworth,former Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar, and GOP candidates Robert Turner and Heather Wilson.
Did you do that on purpose, or was that the actual top of the list?
Most of the rest — $97,576 — went to administrative costs, legal fees, office space and an intern program. Allen said that this cycle the group expects more of the money to go toward candidates, since much of its costs were one-time fees and the administrative burdens will be more on the 501(c)4.
Ah, the Daniels Brigade.
Look, kids--boys--take whatever you didn't really spend of that 100 large, get yourself a nice hotel, and spend a day--one day--examining your own beliefs, the central tenets of Republicanism, the political realities outside New England, and the substantive arguments of a theoretical Rand Paul candidacy. Do it seriously and honestly. Because, trust me on this, someday you'll wish you had something to look back on and laugh about.
Friday, February 22
From Denial To Bargaining
David Weigel, “The Most Misleading Number About the Tea Party and the Senate”. February 22
READER, leave us imagine that in 2010 you traded your job as a libertarian blogger at The Washington Independent for a job as an independent blogger at the Washington Post, a once-great metropolitan newspaper now recapitulating that metropolis' ontogeny in reverse (precapitulating?) by morphing into a fetid swamp. And by design or inclination you become that paper's de facto Teabagger expert. Or maybe it's just because you know the hundred members or so personally.
Any road, in 2010, in the rapidly-shrinking Rational world, the Teabag movement is already known for two things: phony claims of being a sui generis, grassroots, non-partisan movement, and getting coverage exponentially greater than its actual numbers. So of course your plan would be to act like you never heard any of this, because reporters are always the last to know. And, not coincidentally, to ride the well-financed wave of bullshit propelling the "movement" to the forefront of American politicaldebate shoutiness.
But, small problem, you're caught in flagrante email saying nice things to other hip young up-and-coming political bloggers about their choice of eyewear and homosexual tendencies. [Note, reader, that at this point we have to assume that some sizable part of this story is true, else the way ahead is impassible and oer'flown with contrails.] This causes you to be "fired" by the Post. turned into a "liberal" hero by none other than Keith Olbermann, who would know, then "rehired" by the Post. Because of course it does.
And, just in time for the "historic" midterm Republican victory of 2010 to be attributed to the sui generis, grassroots, not-quite-as-non-partisan Teabag movement.
One problem remains: this is all still nonsense, at its core; no political observer whose memory or understanding goes back further than 2004 can possibly believe it, and no one with a half-assed current assessment of American politics can mistake the Teabag party for anything other than a cluster of boils. A Republican cluster of boils.
So you're stuck, right? You have, like Thurber, struggled painfully for an entire semester of Freshman biology trying to resolve what you see, or don't see, through a microscope into some sort of expected image and then, at the last minute, manage to produce a drawing of your own eyeball. Except that, by accident, good karma, or shrewd calculation, you've chosen to be a journalist. So it doesn't count.
Well, this seems to be our week to reanalyze the 2012 Senatorial races. Bit of interest at the beginning here, in how Cook's list of Tossups differs from Newt's list of Coula Shouldas (Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida), as the latter had no apparent interest in close races where Republicans had nominated anyone to the left of Dick Nixon, but, remember, Professor Gingrich is a licensed and compulsive fabulist.
Seven losses with no possible connection to the Teabag party? Well, Tommy Thompson is pretty much the definition of a mainstream Republican (like Paul Ryan isn't?), but he was running in a state already luxuriously pre-conditioned by Koch dealers. Maine, Massachussetts? Not exactly states where Teabagging has made sweeping inroads. Connecticut? Does Linda McMahon even count?
That leaves Montana and North Dakota, where Republicans ran seated House members, which ought to count for something, and Virginia, where they ran George Allen, who is a kook.
Of all those races only North Dakota was really close. So let's agree that, generally, Charlie Cook's post-election predictions are better than his pre-election ones.
Flummery. With the possible exception of Warren/Brown, though I doubt it, more Americans knew "Todd Akin" as a Republican running for the Senate than any of the people on either of those lists. Ditto Richard Mourdock, although in truth Mourdock was already losing in Indiana when something triggered that sexual reverie of his. These guys dragged down the Republican brand, by being the Republican id, in public. They didn't rewrite other states' races, maybe, but they sure energized voters. Mostly Democratic voters.
Teabag candidates--again, assuming their existence arguendo--are shouty, unlikeable, and they roll around like loose ball bearings. They might win elections where that describes much of the electorate, and they might win elections by chance when they manage, like Mourdock or Akin, to beat marginally-saner candidates in the primary. And, well, and that's it. They aren't making any inroads. They might be holding some Republican office holders' feet to the fire, but they aren't doing much more than threatening a reduction in campaign war chests, aka retirement funds. Their numbers may be small--up from "imaginary"--but they're a serious problem nationally, and they're what's preventing "internal reform". That, and the fact that "Teabagger" is just another name for Red State wingnut.
READER, leave us imagine that in 2010 you traded your job as a libertarian blogger at The Washington Independent for a job as an independent blogger at the Washington Post, a once-great metropolitan newspaper now recapitulating that metropolis' ontogeny in reverse (precapitulating?) by morphing into a fetid swamp. And by design or inclination you become that paper's de facto Teabagger expert. Or maybe it's just because you know the hundred members or so personally.
Any road, in 2010, in the rapidly-shrinking Rational world, the Teabag movement is already known for two things: phony claims of being a sui generis, grassroots, non-partisan movement, and getting coverage exponentially greater than its actual numbers. So of course your plan would be to act like you never heard any of this, because reporters are always the last to know. And, not coincidentally, to ride the well-financed wave of bullshit propelling the "movement" to the forefront of American political
But, small problem, you're caught in flagrante email saying nice things to other hip young up-and-coming political bloggers about their choice of eyewear and homosexual tendencies. [Note, reader, that at this point we have to assume that some sizable part of this story is true, else the way ahead is impassible and oer'flown with contrails.] This causes you to be "fired" by the Post. turned into a "liberal" hero by none other than Keith Olbermann, who would know, then "rehired" by the Post. Because of course it does.
And, just in time for the "historic" midterm Republican victory of 2010 to be attributed to the sui generis, grassroots, not-quite-as-non-partisan Teabag movement.
One problem remains: this is all still nonsense, at its core; no political observer whose memory or understanding goes back further than 2004 can possibly believe it, and no one with a half-assed current assessment of American politics can mistake the Teabag party for anything other than a cluster of boils. A Republican cluster of boils.
So you're stuck, right? You have, like Thurber, struggled painfully for an entire semester of Freshman biology trying to resolve what you see, or don't see, through a microscope into some sort of expected image and then, at the last minute, manage to produce a drawing of your own eyeball. Except that, by accident, good karma, or shrewd calculation, you've chosen to be a journalist. So it doesn't count.
In one of the 500 "both sides share the blame" columns that National Journal is required to run every day, Charlie Cook repeats the least useful "data point" about the Tea Party's role in dragging down the GOP.
In 2010, the GOP lost five of the seven Senate contests The Cook Political Report rated as toss-ups going into Election Day; in 2012, it lost eight of 10. When a party loses 13 of 17 toss-ups over two elections, it has a problem. In many cases, Republicans nominated horrifically flawed candidates who didn’t quite self-destruct but were too weak to win. In other cases, they nominated candidates who did self-destruct. And when these problematic candidates pulled the pin on the grenade, other GOP office-seekers in their states became collateral damage.
In 2010, yes, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell blew elections that Republicans were on track to win. (The Nevada race that Angle lost was less of a sure thing—Harry Reid is underestimated as his enemies' peril. But we'll go with it.) In 2012, Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin lost elections that other Republicans could have won, but Todd Akin was not endorsed by any major national or local Tea Party organization.Just the Republican primary voters of Missouri. And Rick Santorum. And Steve King. And Michele Bachmann. And David Barton, Jim DeMint, Phyllis Schlafly, Pete Sessions, Jim Jordan, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee…
Okay, so, on to that "eight of 10" number from 2012, from the final pre-election Cook report. Akin's race wasn't on that list—by election time, Cook rated the race as a "likely" Democratic win. Mourdock's race was on the list. But look at the other close races lost by Republicans: Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Massachussetts, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Maine. In the first four, they nominated current or former Republican legislators, not Tea Party candidates. In Wisconsin, they nominated a former governor who defeated Tea Party candidates in the primary. In Connecticut, they nominated a multi-millionaire who ran to the left. And in Maine, they nominated a fairly centrist Republican who tried, and failed, to win a three-way race against a Democrat and an Independent supported by Democrats. As Ramesh Ponnuru keeps writing, most GOP Senate candidates, even in places like Texas and Montana, ran behind Mitt Romney.
Well, this seems to be our week to reanalyze the 2012 Senatorial races. Bit of interest at the beginning here, in how Cook's list of Tossups differs from Newt's list of Coula Shouldas (Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida), as the latter had no apparent interest in close races where Republicans had nominated anyone to the left of Dick Nixon, but, remember, Professor Gingrich is a licensed and compulsive fabulist.
Seven losses with no possible connection to the Teabag party? Well, Tommy Thompson is pretty much the definition of a mainstream Republican (like Paul Ryan isn't?), but he was running in a state already luxuriously pre-conditioned by Koch dealers. Maine, Massachussetts? Not exactly states where Teabagging has made sweeping inroads. Connecticut? Does Linda McMahon even count?
That leaves Montana and North Dakota, where Republicans ran seated House members, which ought to count for something, and Virginia, where they ran George Allen, who is a kook.
Of all those races only North Dakota was really close. So let's agree that, generally, Charlie Cook's post-election predictions are better than his pre-election ones.
The gaffe/Tea Party theory of Republican defeat is just too pat, too easy. George Allen didn't lose by 6 points because Loudon County independents got spooked about Todd Akin. Believing that lets Republicans put off any real questions about internal reform.
Flummery. With the possible exception of Warren/Brown, though I doubt it, more Americans knew "Todd Akin" as a Republican running for the Senate than any of the people on either of those lists. Ditto Richard Mourdock, although in truth Mourdock was already losing in Indiana when something triggered that sexual reverie of his. These guys dragged down the Republican brand, by being the Republican id, in public. They didn't rewrite other states' races, maybe, but they sure energized voters. Mostly Democratic voters.
Teabag candidates--again, assuming their existence arguendo--are shouty, unlikeable, and they roll around like loose ball bearings. They might win elections where that describes much of the electorate, and they might win elections by chance when they manage, like Mourdock or Akin, to beat marginally-saner candidates in the primary. And, well, and that's it. They aren't making any inroads. They might be holding some Republican office holders' feet to the fire, but they aren't doing much more than threatening a reduction in campaign war chests, aka retirement funds. Their numbers may be small--up from "imaginary"--but they're a serious problem nationally, and they're what's preventing "internal reform". That, and the fact that "Teabagger" is just another name for Red State wingnut.
Wednesday, February 20
A Surfeit Of Loons
Kevin Robillard, "Newt: Rove effort like 'Chicago machine'". February 20
I DON'T know which is better news for the Republic: Karl Rove getting his latest comeuppance ("You're going to need more than one lesson, Mr. Kane.") at the hands of the paint drinkers and snake handlers who are the only reason his party got near enough to power for him to become a household epithet, or the fact that that party is still getting advice from Newt Gingrich.
Or maybe we should thank Politico for keeping the likes of Gingrich and Huckabee alive decades after what little political relevance they once possessed. I spent much of this morning trying to come up with four Democrats who've been as successful at success as those two are at failure. I started with Bill Clinton, and I ended with Bill Clinton.
Let's leave the comedy of Newt Fucking Gingrich complaining about billionaire money deciding Republican races to write itself. It's always important to take notes while the Professor is speaking:
Lessee…lost Montana 49-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost North Dakota 50-49, incumbent Democrat retired, Republican primary challenge…lost Ohio 50-49 to incumbent Democrat…lost Wisconsin 51-46 after incumbent Democrat retired and Republican primary challenge…lost Pennsylvania 54-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost Virginia 53-47 after incumbent Democrat retired…lost Florida 55-42 to incumbent Democrat. Yeah, those are totally like losing the seat Dick Lugar would have carried by 30 points because the Club for Growth decided to kick him downstairs. And McCaskill was an incumbent, too, except one who was headed for the dump until the party nominated a guy from the spirit world. Good analysis, though. Run with it, Newt. Please. In 2016.
I DON'T know which is better news for the Republic: Karl Rove getting his latest comeuppance ("You're going to need more than one lesson, Mr. Kane.") at the hands of the paint drinkers and snake handlers who are the only reason his party got near enough to power for him to become a household epithet, or the fact that that party is still getting advice from Newt Gingrich.
Or maybe we should thank Politico for keeping the likes of Gingrich and Huckabee alive decades after what little political relevance they once possessed. I spent much of this morning trying to come up with four Democrats who've been as successful at success as those two are at failure. I started with Bill Clinton, and I ended with Bill Clinton.
Let's leave the comedy of Newt Fucking Gingrich complaining about billionaire money deciding Republican races to write itself. It's always important to take notes while the Professor is speaking:
“While Rove would like to argue his ‘national nomination machine’ will protect Republicans from candidates like those who failed in Missouri and Indiana, that isn’t the bigger story. Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure."
Lessee…lost Montana 49-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost North Dakota 50-49, incumbent Democrat retired, Republican primary challenge…lost Ohio 50-49 to incumbent Democrat…lost Wisconsin 51-46 after incumbent Democrat retired and Republican primary challenge…lost Pennsylvania 54-45 to incumbent Democrat…lost Virginia 53-47 after incumbent Democrat retired…lost Florida 55-42 to incumbent Democrat. Yeah, those are totally like losing the seat Dick Lugar would have carried by 30 points because the Club for Growth decided to kick him downstairs. And McCaskill was an incumbent, too, except one who was headed for the dump until the party nominated a guy from the spirit world. Good analysis, though. Run with it, Newt. Please. In 2016.
Thursday, February 14
The Autotune Party
John Dickerson, "What Mitt Romney Can Teach Marco Rubio". February 13
OH, first: Shorter Maggie Haberman: "Republican consultants generally agree that Mark Rubio's Phony Salesman in the Headlights routine won't be remembered for all eternity."
Maybe it's just the ever-sunny optimist in me, but I have a vague and happy thoughtbubble, the size of a child's balloon, that the Middle Way "movement" in this country, the whole anti-partisanship, undecided voter mindset, is turning away, not from the Republican party, which even it has had to recognize for some time now as the source of the problems it was complaining about, but from the Beltway insider view of the problem. Which, if I may summarize, is that there aren't enough John McCains in the Congress.
Maybe it is just me, but when I do watch the Sundays, instead of letting Piece do the heavy lifting for me, or when (as he did) I happen to run into Morning Joe politischmoozing Cokie Fucking Roberts and Michael Fucking Steele, I feel less inclined to nickname all the guests Fuckwad than I do to marvel at the slow-motion disintegration going on. Like you, I have no idea why it's taken so long. I just, somehow, have the sense that the put-upon Middle of the country, that portion of it which isn't certifiable, has begun to recognize the con. And that even the courtly Press has begun to recognize that as a problem.
Okay, while I'm thinking about it: last time I jumped off from a John Dickerson piece he somehow got the notion that I write preambles, rather than ambles, and mistook my utter lack of any sort of compass, magnetic, personal, or moral, for a personal disagreement. He was very nice about it, and I suggested, in response, that a grown man should know better than to scratch every mosquito bite until it bleeds. My manners, I know; I'm stuck with 'em at this point. Leave us save everyone's time but yours, Reader, and note that the above isn't a comment about John Dickerson's column, or John Dickerson generally, or as a concept. It's about David Fucking Gregory.
Meanwhile, our point is that there's no rehabilitating Marco Rubio, not outside the Beltway. Not because he can't control his thirst, not because he thinks autobiography is a fiction genre, but because he's an obvious carnival talker *.
None of which matter, because, really, Time. It's like wondering what his political future is now that he's lost the endorsement of Crocheting Monthly.
Probably because that's what he did.
Hard to believe someone at Politico caught wind of that.
It's also his first foray into magic realism.
Really? Because, apart from Governor Christie's rather remarkable architectural feat of shape-shifting something that size when his own constituency suddenly needed a strong central government--okay, maybe that's more like "hydraulic engineering"--I'd as soon hire the firm of Moe, Larry, and Curly. Hell, Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe DeRita.
So will a functioning sense of smell.
Look, don't get me wrong; I've lived through the political popularity of Ronald Reagan and Mitch Daniels, and at least three resurrections of Richard Nixon. I know anything's possible. I also know that Marco Rubio can take all the soundings he wants, train his crew 18 hours a day, and buy the best admiral's hat he can find, and his boat will still be on the rocks, and the scuppers overflow'd, and the only functioning lifeboat will already contain the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, and two or three anti-abortion activists waving Bushmasters. I look forward to his finessing that for the next three years.
First, right, it "may" never be ready. On the plus side, it is perfectly placed in case the 19th century returns.
Second, can't we just say it? The Republican party is frickin' insane, to the point that Insanity is the party's signature principle. The current Republican message isn't "smaller government" (and perhaps the party would be better off if they'd been called on that little fiction thirty years ago); it's "feces-hurling psychosis". The proper venue for that message is "Post-war apocalyptic hellscape." Marco Rubio's not ready for his closeup, but his party ain't ready for even small adjustments, and small adjustments ain't gonna get the job done.
Really, if the threat of being seen consorting with Karl Rove has to be avoided at all costs, winning elections is the least of the GOP's problems. And if "getting right on immigration" is the key to winning national elections then let's all just give up.
It's interesting how this is imagined to be the Republicans' "problem" with Hispanic voters. Figure out a way to seem only half as bigoted and hateful, sprinkle on a little eau de bootstrap, and hello White House.
Yeah, except there aren't any. The wonders of small government, "right to work", and indifferent regulatory environments are on display throughout the south. Republican programs and prescriptions aren't untried; they're failures. This country has been vacillating between Reaganomics and Reaganomics Lite for thirty-five years now; if they're so magical why are we still having this conversation? If the great swath of red-meat Republicans are going to be motivated by Neo-Whiggism why isn't Romney President?
C'mon, Marco Rubio doesn't lead his party. I doubt anyone does, and I sincerely question if anyone can as presently constituted. Marco Rubio is somebody's idea of what a Republican Presidential candidate should look like in 2016. Nothing more. God knows weaker candidates have managed to get nominated, and win. But if Rubio has to cross a minefield just to get the Republican rank-and-file to go along with the idea that undocumented persons are yet persons then it's reasonable to ask what, besides money, could possibly motivate him. And what, besides someone's idea of "electability", possibly recommends him? Sure, sure, there are a hundred reasons why he gave a lackluster performance the other night auditioning for the role of the Great Off-White Hope. ** Most of them involve the fact that his message lacks luster. Or honesty. Or coherence. Best wishes constructing one that does in the next two years, and not being hounded off the stage in the first Republican debate. (If any.)
Meanwhile, y'know, yes. It's petty, and juvenile, and beneath our dignity to note that Boy Wonder, v. 3.0, fell as flat Tuesday night as did Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal before him. Because it's no sin to be thirsty. Just to read from a teleprompter.
______________
* "Barker" is not the correct term. Not among carnival folk. Believe me, I married one.
**Swiped, shamelessly, from Big Hank53.
OH, first: Shorter Maggie Haberman: "Republican consultants generally agree that Mark Rubio's Phony Salesman in the Headlights routine won't be remembered for all eternity."
Maybe it's just the ever-sunny optimist in me, but I have a vague and happy thoughtbubble, the size of a child's balloon, that the Middle Way "movement" in this country, the whole anti-partisanship, undecided voter mindset, is turning away, not from the Republican party, which even it has had to recognize for some time now as the source of the problems it was complaining about, but from the Beltway insider view of the problem. Which, if I may summarize, is that there aren't enough John McCains in the Congress.
Maybe it is just me, but when I do watch the Sundays, instead of letting Piece do the heavy lifting for me, or when (as he did) I happen to run into Morning Joe politischmoozing Cokie Fucking Roberts and Michael Fucking Steele, I feel less inclined to nickname all the guests Fuckwad than I do to marvel at the slow-motion disintegration going on. Like you, I have no idea why it's taken so long. I just, somehow, have the sense that the put-upon Middle of the country, that portion of it which isn't certifiable, has begun to recognize the con. And that even the courtly Press has begun to recognize that as a problem.
Okay, while I'm thinking about it: last time I jumped off from a John Dickerson piece he somehow got the notion that I write preambles, rather than ambles, and mistook my utter lack of any sort of compass, magnetic, personal, or moral, for a personal disagreement. He was very nice about it, and I suggested, in response, that a grown man should know better than to scratch every mosquito bite until it bleeds. My manners, I know; I'm stuck with 'em at this point. Leave us save everyone's time but yours, Reader, and note that the above isn't a comment about John Dickerson's column, or John Dickerson generally, or as a concept. It's about David Fucking Gregory.
Meanwhile, our point is that there's no rehabilitating Marco Rubio, not outside the Beltway. Not because he can't control his thirst, not because he thinks autobiography is a fiction genre, but because he's an obvious carnival talker *.
What's worse for your political ambitions, being labeled a wimp by Newsweek or a savior by Time? Marco Rubio, the freshman senator from Florida, has been stuck with the savior label and it has several disadvantages.
None of which matter, because, really, Time. It's like wondering what his political future is now that he's lost the endorsement of Crocheting Monthly.
After Rubio delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, commentators said he had simply mouthed standard GOP talking points.
Probably because that's what he did.
As Jonathan Martin pointed out, Rubio's speech—thick with references to his humble origins and common touch—was designed to send the signal that he was the polar opposite of Mitt Romney.
Hard to believe someone at Politico caught wind of that.
The story of Rubio, his ambitions, and how they play out is about more than just the fortunes of one charismatic Republican.
It's also his first foray into magic realism.
Rubio is one of the architects of the Republican future. Like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Rep. Paul Ryan, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,
Really? Because, apart from Governor Christie's rather remarkable architectural feat of shape-shifting something that size when his own constituency suddenly needed a strong central government--okay, maybe that's more like "hydraulic engineering"--I'd as soon hire the firm of Moe, Larry, and Curly. Hell, Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe DeRita.
Every day Rubio is taking soundings about what the GOP will allow and what the larger electorate will allow. The risks he takes and the reactions they provoke from his fellow-travelers will tell us something about where the party is headed.
So will a functioning sense of smell.
Look, don't get me wrong; I've lived through the political popularity of Ronald Reagan and Mitch Daniels, and at least three resurrections of Richard Nixon. I know anything's possible. I also know that Marco Rubio can take all the soundings he wants, train his crew 18 hours a day, and buy the best admiral's hat he can find, and his boat will still be on the rocks, and the scuppers overflow'd, and the only functioning lifeboat will already contain the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, and two or three anti-abortion activists waving Bushmasters. I look forward to his finessing that for the next three years.
Still, the criticism of Rubio’s State of the Union response asks too much too soon. The GOP is not ready to announce a sweeping new direction, (it may never be ready) and Rubio isn't in a position to launch a thorough rebranding right now anyway. Even if he was, 10 minutes after the State of the Union would be the wrong time to do it. Still, if Rubio is going to add new energy to the GOP, he'll have to find a venue where he can make a much more compelling case for the party's signature principle: the promise and glory of smaller government.
First, right, it "may" never be ready. On the plus side, it is perfectly placed in case the 19th century returns.
Second, can't we just say it? The Republican party is frickin' insane, to the point that Insanity is the party's signature principle. The current Republican message isn't "smaller government" (and perhaps the party would be better off if they'd been called on that little fiction thirty years ago); it's "feces-hurling psychosis". The proper venue for that message is "Post-war apocalyptic hellscape." Marco Rubio's not ready for his closeup, but his party ain't ready for even small adjustments, and small adjustments ain't gonna get the job done.
Whoever the transformational figure is, he or she is going to have to build a bridge between the old and the new. That requires at least two tasks: challenging orthodoxy and giving special voice to it. If you can sing the song of American exceptionalism and free enterprise in a way that pleases your party base, then you can push the envelope on immigration without fear of being called a RINO or consorting with Karl Rove.
Really, if the threat of being seen consorting with Karl Rove has to be avoided at all costs, winning elections is the least of the GOP's problems. And if "getting right on immigration" is the key to winning national elections then let's all just give up.
The party was going up against Obama. The script was pre-written. Plus, Rubio is already clashing with conservatives over his immigration reform plans. To the extent he has other provocative ideas (and he may not), it doesn't make sense to create more tumult while you're trying to make rocky progress on immigration.
It's interesting how this is imagined to be the Republicans' "problem" with Hispanic voters. Figure out a way to seem only half as bigoted and hateful, sprinkle on a little eau de bootstrap, and hello White House.
Rubio's case wasn't that nearly savior-worthy. It affirmed the bounties of the free market, but he spent most of the time explaining why Obama's big government was bad. An amazing story about the wonders that would flow from smaller government would be more appealing and persuasive. Bromides about unleashing sectors and removing regulations are tired and threadbare.
Yeah, except there aren't any. The wonders of small government, "right to work", and indifferent regulatory environments are on display throughout the south. Republican programs and prescriptions aren't untried; they're failures. This country has been vacillating between Reaganomics and Reaganomics Lite for thirty-five years now; if they're so magical why are we still having this conversation? If the great swath of red-meat Republicans are going to be motivated by Neo-Whiggism why isn't Romney President?
C'mon, Marco Rubio doesn't lead his party. I doubt anyone does, and I sincerely question if anyone can as presently constituted. Marco Rubio is somebody's idea of what a Republican Presidential candidate should look like in 2016. Nothing more. God knows weaker candidates have managed to get nominated, and win. But if Rubio has to cross a minefield just to get the Republican rank-and-file to go along with the idea that undocumented persons are yet persons then it's reasonable to ask what, besides money, could possibly motivate him. And what, besides someone's idea of "electability", possibly recommends him? Sure, sure, there are a hundred reasons why he gave a lackluster performance the other night auditioning for the role of the Great Off-White Hope. ** Most of them involve the fact that his message lacks luster. Or honesty. Or coherence. Best wishes constructing one that does in the next two years, and not being hounded off the stage in the first Republican debate. (If any.)
Meanwhile, y'know, yes. It's petty, and juvenile, and beneath our dignity to note that Boy Wonder, v. 3.0, fell as flat Tuesday night as did Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal before him. Because it's no sin to be thirsty. Just to read from a teleprompter.
______________
* "Barker" is not the correct term. Not among carnival folk. Believe me, I married one.
**Swiped, shamelessly, from Big Hank53.
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!
"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".
Sorry, but nothing Glenn Beck, provacatuer, does will ever top things Glenn Beck did when he thought he was being taken seriously.
Equating "art" with "snooty French accent"? Comedy genius. What a porvocoture!
Overpriced Art! Stop, you're killing me by proxy proovication!
Like Truck Nutz. Or, more accurately, like Truck Nutz fifteen years from now.
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:
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."
Or your base. You guys just can't ever, ever, give up on the Elites routine, can you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, it was a brave performance, all right.
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?
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.)
Who knew there were enough Average Americans to swing an election?
Which, according to Mitt, meant those earning $250,000.
Then his mistake was in not running against John McCain. [/rimshot] Oh, wait, he did.
In my world, the definition of "back-handed compliment" is "something some dick of a sore loser spouts when he thinks people are listening."
You could'a won 'em both--for real or by Court intervention--and you still would have lost, genius.
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.
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?
So does that show where D-level celebrities try to dance.
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.
Y'know, I like to sit back and remember my illusory childhood sometimes, too.
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.
That close to Miss Congeniality. You lacked only the congeniality. And the women.
Or voting.
Please, don't ever change.
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—Pepé 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.
Monday, October 1
Monday Olio: Let Romney Be Romney!
• So at this point Mitt's gotten free advice from Karl Rove, Peggy Noonan, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Harold Stassen, probably, in addition to the millions of bucksworth he purchased on the open market. (And Jennifer Rubin, but that's not advice, it's a colonoscopy.) And leave us note here that all that talent accounts for one (1) actual victory in a national election. And that that one is the one which cemented George W. Bush's reputation with the RNC.
• Anyway, here's mine: Hire a stand-in. Professor Irwin Corey's still kicking.
• And another, in the form of a general maxim: Whistling past the graveyard's never kept anybody out of one.
• Your man's a dog. And not a friendly, lovable mutt or a scary, throat-removal dog, but one of those prancing purebreds with its own special haircut. This race is over. Sure, sure, it ain't over til it's over, and Michael Dukakis was ahead at this point (ahem), and whatever else you wanna tell yourself, rather than tell yourself that your brand sucks, and is nowhere near as popular as you pretend it is, a conclusion which is based, apparently, on taking Reagan's approval ratings in 1982, comparing them to 1989, and assuming continued growth at that rate ever since.
You can keep telling yourself that Obama's vulnerable, that his domestic record is abysmal, and keep looking for reasons (in the main, Mitt Romney) you're not crushing him, but so long as you keep denying what thirty years of Republican rule actually brought to this country you're going to be caught in that endless spin cycle. He's the guy your own people judged the most electable from that crowd of mixed nuts of yours. And rightly so. Just not electable enough, because this time four years isn't enough time for everyone to forget just who screwed up the most, and who benefited.
• And another thing, maybe you shouldn't'a gone Full Metal Socialism three weeks into the Obama administration, and you'd have something more now than Paul Ryan claiming Librul Media bias, fee chrissakes. The Wake Up Call! It's coming from inside the house!
• Anyway, here's mine: Hire a stand-in. Professor Irwin Corey's still kicking.
• And another, in the form of a general maxim: Whistling past the graveyard's never kept anybody out of one.
• Your man's a dog. And not a friendly, lovable mutt or a scary, throat-removal dog, but one of those prancing purebreds with its own special haircut. This race is over. Sure, sure, it ain't over til it's over, and Michael Dukakis was ahead at this point (ahem), and whatever else you wanna tell yourself, rather than tell yourself that your brand sucks, and is nowhere near as popular as you pretend it is, a conclusion which is based, apparently, on taking Reagan's approval ratings in 1982, comparing them to 1989, and assuming continued growth at that rate ever since.
You can keep telling yourself that Obama's vulnerable, that his domestic record is abysmal, and keep looking for reasons (in the main, Mitt Romney) you're not crushing him, but so long as you keep denying what thirty years of Republican rule actually brought to this country you're going to be caught in that endless spin cycle. He's the guy your own people judged the most electable from that crowd of mixed nuts of yours. And rightly so. Just not electable enough, because this time four years isn't enough time for everyone to forget just who screwed up the most, and who benefited.
• And another thing, maybe you shouldn't'a gone Full Metal Socialism three weeks into the Obama administration, and you'd have something more now than Paul Ryan claiming Librul Media bias, fee chrissakes. The Wake Up Call! It's coming from inside the house!
Wednesday, September 19
Even The Conservative David Brooks…
David Brooks, "Thurston Howell Romney". September 17
John Dickerson, "Why If Romney Loses, the GOP Will Declare War on Itself". September 18
JOHN Dickerson is in his mid-forties and a second-generation Washington insider; professionally he's a writer for Slate and CBS's Political Director, although I'm not sure what either of those things means. So, honestly, if he can't be bothered to remember four years ago, same as the Republican party can't be bothered remembering George W. Bush, I guess we all might as well forget it.
It was during the Republican 2008 convention that Peggy Noonan shocked everyone, myself included, who subscribed to the theory that she knows absolutely nothing by dissing Sarah Palin when Nooners thought she was off mike. (So did Chuck Todd, but nothing will change my attitude about him.) The mumbles were loud enough to make out by September, and by early October a) the inevitability of defeat by Barack Obama had taken hold on the Right, and b) the rough outline of the Ross Douthat/Reihan Salaam Blueprint for a Republican Resurgance (short version: be like us!) was on the breakfast agenda at Doubleday. This, as we all know, led to the Republican party distancing itself from Palinesque extremism, and moving toward the happy center it occupies now.
Okay: David Brooks is a simpering self-promoter interested only in keeping his own taxes low and justifying his juvenile Milton Friedman crush; Brooks' sole purpose within the Republican party is to convince Republican insiders that they have somebody in the "liberal" Press who makes them sound reasonable. He's an ad man for a crappy product. Republicans don't listen to him. They've never listened to him. They're not supposed to listen to him. Haley Barbour is a genuine Republican insider, albeit one who found out just how blatantly corrupt you have to be to get your fellow Republicans to notice. Leave us note that Barbour is blathering about immigration, which has nothing to do with Romney's problems, except, maybe, as a symptom of what becoming more attractive to the Republican electorate has cost him. Barbour, following Romney's loss, has now set himself up to be the next Ed Rollins. And to serve as a career template for Reince Priebus.
Kristol? Does anyone know what Bill Kristol is? Okay, he may be a consultant to Republican insiders who can't quite manufacture all the Crazy they require in house, but otherwise he seems little more than something a clinically insane homicidal maniac with seventeen personalities might aspire to become if he could just reduce 'em to one or two.
The Republican party won't reform. The Republican party can't reform. It certainly isn't gonna reform because a few insiders wish the collection of racist religious fascists and chain-letter cranks it threw in with fifty years ago would make themselves a little more presentable in time for Prom.
Mr. Brooks?
Which I guess means you guys are ready to discuss pandemic income inequality and astronomical healthcare costs?
Ha, ha. Just kiddin'. Boy, nothin' relieves you of the obligation of serious analysis like spouting a statistic, does it? I guess Mitt Romney could have explained that to you.
Might be a little more accurate if you adjusted for the inflation in medical costs over the past 50 years. Especially since there was no such thing as Medicare or Medicaid in 1960.
Here's a lil' stat they might be interested in at AEI. In 1960, US aid to Israel totaled…well, nothing, really; it was mostly loans, which were repaid. In 2010 that total had marginally increased to…nearly $3.2 billion, 87% of which is military aid. What's the percentage on that?
Yeah, shocking, ain't it, that nobody's fucked the lower classes over the last half-century like Republican administrations?
You could say that our problem is the cheapening of political discourse by people paid to say totally unsupported shit just to score points. One of those surmises is supportable.
Wait, aren't you the guys who opposed Death Panels?
Y'know, this is the sort of political cowardice which put the Republican party increasingly in the hands of the people Mitt Romney has been incrementally pandering to for the last seven years. It's the sort of political cowardice which, in the hands of John Dickerson's cohort, or Democratic centrists, has enabled it, because calling this shit out requires calling it shit. What Romney said was precisely what Paul Ryan has been saying for the entire Obama administration. The math hasn't changed. The ugly reality behind that attitude hasn't changed. People on Social Security are, by and large, elderly, or disabled. And they're there because at one point--long ago, now--we were a moral enough people to judge that such people should not be eating out of garbage cans in a land of plenty. That access to the resources of this country carried with it a responsibility to help husband those resources, including--especially--human resources. How did this come to be debatable, Mr. Brooks? How did the year 2000 lead directly to the 14th century, if not via Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman?
And leave us mention, as well, that at least half of those 47% are women, and your party's been busy all season telling them to shut up and birth some more babies. Y'know, in my experience, smart decisions are a lot less likely than stupid decisions to fall victim to bad timing.
In other words, it's the truth.
Wait, disability payments? Th' fuck is wrong with you people?
With the exception of Jon "Not A Fucking Chance In This Or Any Other Solar System" Huntsman, Mr. Brooks, Mitt Romeny was far and away the best your party had to offer. When will that incompetence stop?
John Dickerson, "Why If Romney Loses, the GOP Will Declare War on Itself". September 18
Every love's the love before,
in a duller dress.
--Dorothy Parker
JOHN Dickerson is in his mid-forties and a second-generation Washington insider; professionally he's a writer for Slate and CBS's Political Director, although I'm not sure what either of those things means. So, honestly, if he can't be bothered to remember four years ago, same as the Republican party can't be bothered remembering George W. Bush, I guess we all might as well forget it.
It was during the Republican 2008 convention that Peggy Noonan shocked everyone, myself included, who subscribed to the theory that she knows absolutely nothing by dissing Sarah Palin when Nooners thought she was off mike. (So did Chuck Todd, but nothing will change my attitude about him.) The mumbles were loud enough to make out by September, and by early October a) the inevitability of defeat by Barack Obama had taken hold on the Right, and b) the rough outline of the Ross Douthat/Reihan Salaam Blueprint for a Republican Resurgance (short version: be like us!) was on the breakfast agenda at Doubleday. This, as we all know, led to the Republican party distancing itself from Palinesque extremism, and moving toward the happy center it occupies now.
In addition to my reporting, there are now some public signs. David Brooks offered a withering critique of Romney in a column today that ends with what feels like a post-election analysis seven weeks before the election. "He’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not—some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign." In a piece for Politico today, the former GOP chairman Haley Barbour already sounds like he's offering post-game analysis. “In the future, and not distant future, Republicans have to come to grips with the right policy on immigration," says Barbour. Bill Kristol also appears to be in the mood to offer final words on this campaign: "Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?" (He is apparently not yet buying the Romney campaign’s move to specificity).
Okay: David Brooks is a simpering self-promoter interested only in keeping his own taxes low and justifying his juvenile Milton Friedman crush; Brooks' sole purpose within the Republican party is to convince Republican insiders that they have somebody in the "liberal" Press who makes them sound reasonable. He's an ad man for a crappy product. Republicans don't listen to him. They've never listened to him. They're not supposed to listen to him. Haley Barbour is a genuine Republican insider, albeit one who found out just how blatantly corrupt you have to be to get your fellow Republicans to notice. Leave us note that Barbour is blathering about immigration, which has nothing to do with Romney's problems, except, maybe, as a symptom of what becoming more attractive to the Republican electorate has cost him. Barbour, following Romney's loss, has now set himself up to be the next Ed Rollins. And to serve as a career template for Reince Priebus.
Kristol? Does anyone know what Bill Kristol is? Okay, he may be a consultant to Republican insiders who can't quite manufacture all the Crazy they require in house, but otherwise he seems little more than something a clinically insane homicidal maniac with seventeen personalities might aspire to become if he could just reduce 'em to one or two.
The Republican party won't reform. The Republican party can't reform. It certainly isn't gonna reform because a few insiders wish the collection of racist religious fascists and chain-letter cranks it threw in with fifty years ago would make themselves a little more presentable in time for Prom.
Mr. Brooks?
In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.
Which I guess means you guys are ready to discuss pandemic income inequality and astronomical healthcare costs?
Ha, ha. Just kiddin'. Boy, nothin' relieves you of the obligation of serious analysis like spouting a statistic, does it? I guess Mitt Romney could have explained that to you.
In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years.
Might be a little more accurate if you adjusted for the inflation in medical costs over the past 50 years. Especially since there was no such thing as Medicare or Medicaid in 1960.
Here's a lil' stat they might be interested in at AEI. In 1960, US aid to Israel totaled…well, nothing, really; it was mostly loans, which were repaid. In 2010 that total had marginally increased to…nearly $3.2 billion, 87% of which is military aid. What's the percentage on that?
This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
Yeah, shocking, ain't it, that nobody's fucked the lower classes over the last half-century like Republican administrations?
There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.
You could say that our problem is the cheapening of political discourse by people paid to say totally unsupported shit just to score points. One of those surmises is supportable.
Wait, aren't you the guys who opposed Death Panels?
This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?
Y'know, this is the sort of political cowardice which put the Republican party increasingly in the hands of the people Mitt Romney has been incrementally pandering to for the last seven years. It's the sort of political cowardice which, in the hands of John Dickerson's cohort, or Democratic centrists, has enabled it, because calling this shit out requires calling it shit. What Romney said was precisely what Paul Ryan has been saying for the entire Obama administration. The math hasn't changed. The ugly reality behind that attitude hasn't changed. People on Social Security are, by and large, elderly, or disabled. And they're there because at one point--long ago, now--we were a moral enough people to judge that such people should not be eating out of garbage cans in a land of plenty. That access to the resources of this country carried with it a responsibility to help husband those resources, including--especially--human resources. How did this come to be debatable, Mr. Brooks? How did the year 2000 lead directly to the 14th century, if not via Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman?
And leave us mention, as well, that at least half of those 47% are women, and your party's been busy all season telling them to shut up and birth some more babies. Y'know, in my experience, smart decisions are a lot less likely than stupid decisions to fall victim to bad timing.
Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.
The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.Flummery. This is precisely the result of Reaganism, which came to power after a sixteen year crusade to eliminate the National Debt--almost all of which, at the time, was due to WWII, the Marshall Plan, and the hyper-military spending of the 50s and 60s--by eliminating the social safety net. Don't tell me what sort of cover language Reagan used--he, or his puppeteers, were smart enough to test-market the elimination of Social Security, by taxing the dividends of the elderly--and they turned and ran from the resulting Gray onslaught. The mystery involved here isn't how 60% of Republicans come to imagine the US has no responsibility to its citizens; the mystery is who the other 40% are. The real mystery is how Republicans imagine they can fuck 50% of the population--plus the additional 20% who'd get fucked over, but enjoy it--with impunity.
Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.
In other words, it's the truth.
Wait, disability payments? Th' fuck is wrong with you people?
Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?
With the exception of Jon "Not A Fucking Chance In This Or Any Other Solar System" Huntsman, Mr. Brooks, Mitt Romeny was far and away the best your party had to offer. When will that incompetence stop?
Tuesday, September 18
I've Said It Before, I'll Say It Again: Democracy Simply Does Not Work
I GOTTA tell ya, first, how enjoyable it's been hearing the local morning teleprompter reader introduce Mitt Romney's "explanation" for why he wants to be President of the Deadbeats with the caution that Romney "was recorded secretly". So am I, hairdo, every time I drive through a fucking intersection in this town. You oughta understand that; half your newscast anymore is YouTubery.
Mitt says he spoke "inelegantly". In other news, today's sky color: bluish. Fer crissakes, if you think speaking without elegance gets you in trouble in this country you're even more detached than repeating that 47% nonsense suggests.
Let's just say it plainly: Mitt Romney is not smart enough to be President of the United States. Paul Ryan is not smart enough to be Vice President of the United States. And that's taking into consideration the last pair the Republican party and its Court subsidiary foisted on us. And it's taking into consideration the fact that both men are professional liars, and likely personally dishonest into the bargain. There's lying, and then there's lying in such a way that you register enough contempt for the listener to not be bothered with good lies.
This is the Republican party. It's the Republican party since 1980, the Republican party since the time it lied its way past Watergate, lied its way past Vietnam and Civil Rights, and decided that lying was the key to a shining future. This is the party which has believed, since the Ascension of St. Ronnie, that advertising plus money was not only more powerful than the truth, it was better than the truth. Even smart Republicans have to see, now, what that's got them. Assuming there are any.
Wednesday, August 29
Landfall
I TRIED, really I did. I'd even been looking forward to what sort of pastel Vagisil commercial pitch they were going to hand Ann Romney to read. Or so I kept telling my Poor Wife, and myself. In the end, let us admit that Ann Romney provides neither outright disgust nor smug elitist mirth nor Stepford mock-horror; Ann Romney is no Nancy Reagan, no Babs Bush, nor even Marilyn Quayle. By the grace of God or the cruel jests of Loki she has arrived on a national stage where the audience is too tired, too distracted, or too filled with terror to make her pay for her prissy prancing horses and her awful fashion sense and her clueless self-deceptions about what real people would be like if she ever met any. If only Newt had been the nominee! Boxing lore is full of tales of fighters who suddenly found themselves trapped in an elevator with two or three professional nubiles right before a fight; is it possible that some prescient Republican strategist put Calista in Newt's way, back in the 90s, just so every other Republican wife would look semi-normal by comparison?
Okay, so she did reference the hard-scrabble life she and Willard shared as newlyweds when, armed only with his Hahvahd MBA and JD, his political connections, and the collective wealth of their two families, they managed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps without the help of more than three full-time body servants. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that Ann Romney deserves a pie in the face. I just doubt she'd understand it. I think she'd chalk it up to the Servant Problem.
In a sense, Ann Romney is to the other Republican distaff staff-bearers going back to Pat Nixon what the Mormon church is to organized religion: at first glance she looks like a ready-made figure of fun, but a closer look makes you wanna back away and just shut the door quietly, lest the cruelty lodge itself in your spleen for good. It's like the time in college my friend Kelly and I, after several bong hits of opium, decided it would be great to recast Titicut Follies as a musical.
I tried to sit through Rick Santorum, by which I mean "any segment of his speech longer than two minutes". We all know that Santorum promises much more than he delivers, politically and comically, and, let's face it, turning his name into a synonym for fetid human jelly pretty much exhausted both. Shall we just note, once again, that for 98% of the population old enough to have been elected to the Congress, his or her grandfathers and grandmothers having worked with their hands is not an accomplishment? Not a resumé builder? Not a surprise? The odds are only against this among actual members of Congress. Santorum's parents were both clinical psychologists, and both worked for the gol' danged gubmint. The only symptoms they risked coming down with were symptoms of empathy. And if you've hoisted both, you know empathy's got it all over a pneumatic drill.
I mean, this is the Republican pitch, now? Not rags to riches, but black lung and an early grave with the slim hope that your grandchild, who wouldn't be caught dead doing actual work, will, if he manages to score some taxpayer largess, get to make up shit about how noble you were to work yourself to death for Mr. Peabody so he'd have enough money to fight the Clean Air Act that some of it would splosh on Rick Santorum?
Santorum is to shit-slinging culture warriors what Ann Romney is to Republican First Ladies. He's stuck in gear, as required, but he can't show the proper half-supressed glee when downshifting to run over poor people and environmentalists, because of his public religiosity. Fortunately for his handlers, Roman Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, has a two-millennia history of hypocrisy, so he can still cash checks and pay for his own wife's abortion. * But the truth is that Republicans don't trust religious nut jobs any more than normal people do. Unless they are one. And maybe not even then.
[By the way, let's take a tangential moment to say that 1) Bloggingheads was supposed to teach everyone for all time that opening an article in a printed journal, online or no, to find oneself confronted with a youtubed interview one cared only marginally about to begin with is simply a bad idea, that 2) Slate is the last operation which should be casting aspersions on the Republican relationship to the truth; that 3) no matter how smart or incisive, Britons seem to be congenitally incapable of grasping just how awful modern American politics are, even when talking about how awful they are, and especially how utterly corrupt the Republican party is, and 4) and once and for all, No, fucking Ronald Reagan would not be too fucking liberal for today's Republican party. He'd be right there in the middle of it. This is the same turn of mind which gives us, at every stop, the idea that Bob Dole or Rudy Giuliani is a moderate, that Jack Kemp or Paul Ryan is serious and thoughtful, that George W. Bush is compassionate, or that Mitch Daniels wants to put social issues on the back burner. It's a tic, a tell, an attempt to convince no one so much as oneself that things couldn't possibly be as ugly as they seem. For fuck's sake, Ronald Reagan did not raise taxes nine times because he believed in taxation. He raised them nine times because he believed in Ronald Reagan. And he believed in Ronald Reagan as the spokesman for the people who gave him money. And that's all he believed in, aside from the empirical menace of cows and hippies.
[Weisberg at one point says something like "But Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, enacted some liberal legislation." And he says it as though this tells us something about Mitt Romney's potential. ]
Lor', this left me to flip ahead to watch Chris Christie waddle on stage. (Or not, since he just appeared behind the lectern; maybe he helicoptered in.) What is Christie's appeal? That he's fat and loud, but not addicted to oxycontin? That he's brave enough to appear in public, or wear men's neckwear? He's like Mitch Daniels on human growth hormone and Minoxidil. I've never heard either make a substantive defense of his platitudes. Back when Christie thought he was running for President, or Vice-President, I used to get twenty emails a day from his people. That's not an exaggeration. Like my own Governor, he has the Republican knack for winning arguments by drowning everyone else out. The remaining space is filled with self-congratulation. Which is what Christie did forever, last night, for all I know; I made it through the point where his father was working in an ice cream factory. At least it meant we'd found someone in the audience last night who'd once been paid to use his hands for something other than flinging stuff.
____________
* Sorry, her not-in-any-way-responsible-for-the-foregone-conclusion-to-an-induced-labor-stillbirth-they-didn't-want.
Okay, so she did reference the hard-scrabble life she and Willard shared as newlyweds when, armed only with his Hahvahd MBA and JD, his political connections, and the collective wealth of their two families, they managed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps without the help of more than three full-time body servants. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that Ann Romney deserves a pie in the face. I just doubt she'd understand it. I think she'd chalk it up to the Servant Problem.
In a sense, Ann Romney is to the other Republican distaff staff-bearers going back to Pat Nixon what the Mormon church is to organized religion: at first glance she looks like a ready-made figure of fun, but a closer look makes you wanna back away and just shut the door quietly, lest the cruelty lodge itself in your spleen for good. It's like the time in college my friend Kelly and I, after several bong hits of opium, decided it would be great to recast Titicut Follies as a musical.
I tried to sit through Rick Santorum, by which I mean "any segment of his speech longer than two minutes". We all know that Santorum promises much more than he delivers, politically and comically, and, let's face it, turning his name into a synonym for fetid human jelly pretty much exhausted both. Shall we just note, once again, that for 98% of the population old enough to have been elected to the Congress, his or her grandfathers and grandmothers having worked with their hands is not an accomplishment? Not a resumé builder? Not a surprise? The odds are only against this among actual members of Congress. Santorum's parents were both clinical psychologists, and both worked for the gol' danged gubmint. The only symptoms they risked coming down with were symptoms of empathy. And if you've hoisted both, you know empathy's got it all over a pneumatic drill.
I mean, this is the Republican pitch, now? Not rags to riches, but black lung and an early grave with the slim hope that your grandchild, who wouldn't be caught dead doing actual work, will, if he manages to score some taxpayer largess, get to make up shit about how noble you were to work yourself to death for Mr. Peabody so he'd have enough money to fight the Clean Air Act that some of it would splosh on Rick Santorum?
Santorum is to shit-slinging culture warriors what Ann Romney is to Republican First Ladies. He's stuck in gear, as required, but he can't show the proper half-supressed glee when downshifting to run over poor people and environmentalists, because of his public religiosity. Fortunately for his handlers, Roman Catholicism, unlike Mormonism, has a two-millennia history of hypocrisy, so he can still cash checks and pay for his own wife's abortion. * But the truth is that Republicans don't trust religious nut jobs any more than normal people do. Unless they are one. And maybe not even then.
[By the way, let's take a tangential moment to say that 1) Bloggingheads was supposed to teach everyone for all time that opening an article in a printed journal, online or no, to find oneself confronted with a youtubed interview one cared only marginally about to begin with is simply a bad idea, that 2) Slate is the last operation which should be casting aspersions on the Republican relationship to the truth; that 3) no matter how smart or incisive, Britons seem to be congenitally incapable of grasping just how awful modern American politics are, even when talking about how awful they are, and especially how utterly corrupt the Republican party is, and 4) and once and for all, No, fucking Ronald Reagan would not be too fucking liberal for today's Republican party. He'd be right there in the middle of it. This is the same turn of mind which gives us, at every stop, the idea that Bob Dole or Rudy Giuliani is a moderate, that Jack Kemp or Paul Ryan is serious and thoughtful, that George W. Bush is compassionate, or that Mitch Daniels wants to put social issues on the back burner. It's a tic, a tell, an attempt to convince no one so much as oneself that things couldn't possibly be as ugly as they seem. For fuck's sake, Ronald Reagan did not raise taxes nine times because he believed in taxation. He raised them nine times because he believed in Ronald Reagan. And he believed in Ronald Reagan as the spokesman for the people who gave him money. And that's all he believed in, aside from the empirical menace of cows and hippies.
[Weisberg at one point says something like "But Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, enacted some liberal legislation." And he says it as though this tells us something about Mitt Romney's potential. ]
Lor', this left me to flip ahead to watch Chris Christie waddle on stage. (Or not, since he just appeared behind the lectern; maybe he helicoptered in.) What is Christie's appeal? That he's fat and loud, but not addicted to oxycontin? That he's brave enough to appear in public, or wear men's neckwear? He's like Mitch Daniels on human growth hormone and Minoxidil. I've never heard either make a substantive defense of his platitudes. Back when Christie thought he was running for President, or Vice-President, I used to get twenty emails a day from his people. That's not an exaggeration. Like my own Governor, he has the Republican knack for winning arguments by drowning everyone else out. The remaining space is filled with self-congratulation. Which is what Christie did forever, last night, for all I know; I made it through the point where his father was working in an ice cream factory. At least it meant we'd found someone in the audience last night who'd once been paid to use his hands for something other than flinging stuff.
____________
* Sorry, her not-in-any-way-responsible-for-the-foregone-conclusion-to-an-induced-labor-stillbirth-they-didn't-want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)