COKIE ROBERTS KINDA HEARTS NEWT, AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE GOP FRONT-RUNNER
Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning, talking about Newt Gingrich:
He's essentially channeling Ronald Reagan, but less sunny and more...
See if you can guess the last word of that sentence. I'll wait.
Here it is:
He's essentially channeling Ronald Reagan, but less sunny and more analytical.
Yeah, "analytical" -- that's le mot juste for Newt Gingrich, isn't it? "Food stamp president"? "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior"? Voting GOP prevents mothers from killing all their children? Woody Allen's marriage to Soon-yi is Democratic? Oh, yes, brilliant -- analytically brilliant!
Cokie goes on to say:
Democrats are just salivating at running against Newt Gingrich, with all of his baggage. But they should take a look at how they salivated against-- running against Ronald Reagan, too, and maybe be careful what they wish for.
Oh, please. Look, given the awfulness of the economy (and the potential increase in awfulness via Europe), you'd be crazy to say that Gingrich couldn't possibly win, but really -- this is America, no? Every winning presidential candidate has to find a way to go all Frank Capra on the voters. Even Richard Nixon managed it. Newt can't. He just can't do Humble Everyman. Not even Peggy Noonan at her peak can make him capable of faking that.
Reagan was a partisan attack dog the public thought was a classic Capraesque grandpappy. He could play the part expertly. Gingrich can't play it at all.
****
Meanwhile, I see that Mitt Romney has a pretty hard-hitting ad up about Gingrich and Freddie Mac:
I'm not sure why this line of attack isn't sticking. I know that the GOP crazy base probably thinks that anything any white person does to make massive amounts of money while wearing a suit and not directly taking a government paycheck is a good thing, but this is Freddie Mac, dammit! Wingers hate Fannie and Freddie! Why doesn't this hurt Newt?
Maybe it's the Rob Corddry syndrome -- it's not important that Gingrich consorted with Freddie Mac; what's important is that (to wingnuts) he doesn't seem like the kind of person who would consort with Freddie Mac. (But ... but ... he hates anything government! And quasi-governmental entities!)
But why does Gingrich get away with so many apostasies? Freddie Mac. Attacking Paul Ryan. Attacking Romney's Bain career. Doing that ad with Nancy Pelosi. Why isn't any of this politically fatal?
It's almost as if he and the base have an understanding -- base voters know he's going to cheat on them with another ideology, but he's just so good to them after that. In matters of the heart, a cad might come back home bearing flowers and expensive gifts and reservations for a romantic dinner. Gingrich just attacks Juan Williams and John King. And the base swoons! Oooh, what a hunk! Yes, he may run around, but when he comes home, there's nothing like his good lovin'.
(And feel free to flip the genders -- I'm sure there's a blues or '70s rock song that will fit this no matter which way you want to do the metaphor.)
Monday, January 23, 2012
NOT BAD, MITT, BUT STILL A FEW ROUGH PATCHES
Mitt Romney attacked Newt Gingrich at a campaign rally in Florida yesterday, and he did an adequate job, but there are a few kinks to work out:
"We're not choosing a talk show host," Romney said, alluding to his rival's strong debate performances that helped shift momentum in his favor in South Carolina. "We're choosing the person who should be leader of the free world."
Really? "A talk show host"? I don't know about you, but when I hear that phrase, I think of, well, Oprah. Doesn't everyone on the planet think of Oprah? Is that really the analogy that conveys the essential Newtness of Newt? C'mon, Mitt -- at least make us think about Jerry Springer guests, or the interviewees on pro wrestling broadcasts. Tell the crowd we're electing a president, not electing a Trash-Talker-in-Chief. Tell 'em if we were electing a Trash-Talker-in Chief, hell, you'd vote for Gingrich. Just keeopp saying "Trash-Talker-in-Chief." Not "talk show host." A surprising number of Americans would like Oprah as president.
He went on to list what he described as the qualities of a leader: integrity, sobriety, judgment, thoughtfulness, reliability and high ethical standards.
President Romney will help little old ladies cross the street!
..."At the end of four years as speaker of the House, it was proven that he was a failed leader," Romney said.
And you were governor for, um, how long, Mitt? Four years?
"He had to resign in disgrace. I don't know whether you knew that.... His fellow Republicans -- 88% of his Republicans -- voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership."
Well, Republicans hate government, so being forced to resign from Congress might come off as kind of a good thing, no? I'm not sure this part of the attack connects.
But Romney sought to tie the 1990s ethics investigation to Gingrich's recent work as an advisor to mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "He talks about great, bold movements and ideas -- well what’s he been doing for 15 years? He's been working as a lobbyist ... and selling influence around Washington."
No, no, no, Mitt. You're there, but you're still using too many words. Don't say, "He's been working as a lobbyist ... and selling influence around Washington." Say, "He's been a Washington lobbyist." Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Never say it any other way.
Gingrich has insisted that he never worked as a lobbyist. But to cheers in Ormond Beach, Romney demanded a public review of Gingrich's "work product" as an advisor to Freddie Mac.
"Work product"? Seriously? Mitt, are you attacking a rival or filling out a form from HR?
"Because Freddie Mac figures in very prominently to the fact that people in Florida have seen home values go down. It's time to turn that around."
No! Not "figures very prominently"! Every Fox viewers knows that Freddie and Fannie are 100% responsible for the meltdown! They're the alpha and omega! There is no other culprit! (Oh, except Barney Frank. And Jimmy Carter. And ACORN. But don't say any of that! Keep it simple, stupid!)
Now, this, I think, works, if you're trying to win over wingnuts who are still angry at Jane Fonda (and, Mitt, you are):
At one point during his outdoor rally at a building supply company, Romney was interrupted by protesters chanting, "We are the people." He quickly dismissed them.
"No, actually, these are the people," Romney shouted back. "These are the people; you're the interrupters. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the right to speech. And you believe in interrupting. Take a hike."
Romney's supporters drowned them out by chanting "U-S-A." ...
"I love these guys, by the way, who don't like America and our free-enterprise system, and they have something else in mind," he said. "Take a look at Cuba; take a look at North Korea; take a look at the former Soviet Union. Our system works. What they're fighting for does not work. I believe in America."
Although Romney's determination to shout down anyone who ever tries to interrupt him reminds me of this:
Hey, Mitt: If it comes off as "Shut up, hippie," you're golden. If it comes off as "whiny third grade pedant demanding that the teacher make everyone hew strictly to the rules," well, the voters are going to give you a wedgie.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
Mitt Romney attacked Newt Gingrich at a campaign rally in Florida yesterday, and he did an adequate job, but there are a few kinks to work out:
"We're not choosing a talk show host," Romney said, alluding to his rival's strong debate performances that helped shift momentum in his favor in South Carolina. "We're choosing the person who should be leader of the free world."
Really? "A talk show host"? I don't know about you, but when I hear that phrase, I think of, well, Oprah. Doesn't everyone on the planet think of Oprah? Is that really the analogy that conveys the essential Newtness of Newt? C'mon, Mitt -- at least make us think about Jerry Springer guests, or the interviewees on pro wrestling broadcasts. Tell the crowd we're electing a president, not electing a Trash-Talker-in-Chief. Tell 'em if we were electing a Trash-Talker-in Chief, hell, you'd vote for Gingrich. Just keeopp saying "Trash-Talker-in-Chief." Not "talk show host." A surprising number of Americans would like Oprah as president.
He went on to list what he described as the qualities of a leader: integrity, sobriety, judgment, thoughtfulness, reliability and high ethical standards.
President Romney will help little old ladies cross the street!
..."At the end of four years as speaker of the House, it was proven that he was a failed leader," Romney said.
And you were governor for, um, how long, Mitt? Four years?
"He had to resign in disgrace. I don't know whether you knew that.... His fellow Republicans -- 88% of his Republicans -- voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership."
Well, Republicans hate government, so being forced to resign from Congress might come off as kind of a good thing, no? I'm not sure this part of the attack connects.
But Romney sought to tie the 1990s ethics investigation to Gingrich's recent work as an advisor to mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "He talks about great, bold movements and ideas -- well what’s he been doing for 15 years? He's been working as a lobbyist ... and selling influence around Washington."
No, no, no, Mitt. You're there, but you're still using too many words. Don't say, "He's been working as a lobbyist ... and selling influence around Washington." Say, "He's been a Washington lobbyist." Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Never say it any other way.
Gingrich has insisted that he never worked as a lobbyist. But to cheers in Ormond Beach, Romney demanded a public review of Gingrich's "work product" as an advisor to Freddie Mac.
"Work product"? Seriously? Mitt, are you attacking a rival or filling out a form from HR?
"Because Freddie Mac figures in very prominently to the fact that people in Florida have seen home values go down. It's time to turn that around."
No! Not "figures very prominently"! Every Fox viewers knows that Freddie and Fannie are 100% responsible for the meltdown! They're the alpha and omega! There is no other culprit! (Oh, except Barney Frank. And Jimmy Carter. And ACORN. But don't say any of that! Keep it simple, stupid!)
Now, this, I think, works, if you're trying to win over wingnuts who are still angry at Jane Fonda (and, Mitt, you are):
At one point during his outdoor rally at a building supply company, Romney was interrupted by protesters chanting, "We are the people." He quickly dismissed them.
"No, actually, these are the people," Romney shouted back. "These are the people; you're the interrupters. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the right to speech. And you believe in interrupting. Take a hike."
Romney's supporters drowned them out by chanting "U-S-A." ...
"I love these guys, by the way, who don't like America and our free-enterprise system, and they have something else in mind," he said. "Take a look at Cuba; take a look at North Korea; take a look at the former Soviet Union. Our system works. What they're fighting for does not work. I believe in America."
Although Romney's determination to shout down anyone who ever tries to interrupt him reminds me of this:
Hey, Mitt: If it comes off as "Shut up, hippie," you're golden. If it comes off as "whiny third grade pedant demanding that the teacher make everyone hew strictly to the rules," well, the voters are going to give you a wedgie.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
THE WEASEL WORDS THAT TELL US CHRISTIE REALLY WANTS TO BE VP
The main point of this story from The Hill is that Chris Christie, a Mitt Romney supporter and surrogate, went on Meet the Press and insulted Newt Gingrich ("This is a guy that's had a very difficult career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party") -- despite the fact that Gingrich appeared on the same Meet the Press broadcast, and despite the fact that Gingrich could be the presidential nominee of Christie's party. (The latter suggests to me that, as I've said before, the GOP establishment really might not back Gingrich if he's the nominee, treating him the way the party treated David Duke when he made it to the general election in the Louisiana governor's race years ago. The party might try to secure the Americans Elect line for an establishment Republican instead.)
But beyond that, there's a quote from Christie that's interesting if you think the man he's endorsed, Mitt Romney, is still a likely GOP nominee, although the Hill reporter draws exactly the wrong conclusion:
In the same interview Christie shot down the possibility of joining Romney on the Republican presidential ticket if the former Massachusetts governor won the nomination. He said he would listen if Romney offered him the job but, as of now, he plans to stick in his current job....
"I absolutely believe that come November 2012 I'm going to be governor of New Jersey," Christie said.
Excuse me, but that's a very clever weasel-word answer, for the simple reason that Christie's still going to be governor of New Jersey in November 2012 even if he's on the ticket and it wins, because he wouldn't be sworn in as VP until January 2013.
Say what you will about Christie, he's not Rick Perry -- I'm sure he knows exactly what he's saying when he says that. So, yeah, he wants it.
And if you doubt that, go to the transcript:
GOV. CHRISTIE: ... Now as for the vice presidency, let me say again, I want to be governor of New Jersey. I ran to be governor of New Jersey. I absolutely believe that come November 2012 I'm going to be governor of New Jersey and not in any other office. The fact of the matter is, if Governor Romney, who's going to be our nominee, picked up the phone and called me to talk about this, I love my country enough and I love my party enough to listen, but in the end, David, if you were a betting guy--and I know you are, I know you are, David. If you're a betting guy, you should bet Chris Christie being the governor of New Jersey in November 2012.
Well, I'd take that bet, just as I would have taken a bet that Joe Biden would still be the senior senator from Delaware in November 2008 -- just not two months later.
I think Christie's at the top of Romney's short list -- or he's trying to get there.
****
By the way, the exchange (with interviewer David Gregory) gets a bit sickening:
MR. GREGORY: But you said once, who would want me as a number two?
GOV. CHRISTIE: Well, I still feel that way.
MR. GREGORY: But you'd be a good vice president, wouldn't you?
GOV. CHRISTIE: Oh, listen, I think that certain personalities...
MR. GREGORY: Not to appeal to your ego or anything.
GOV. CHRISTIE: No, listen...
MR. GREGORY: I'm saying you'd be wonderful, wouldn't you?
"You'd be wonderful"? There's your liberal media, folks. I mean, yeah, he smiles when he says this -- watch it in the clip at about 9:00 -- but you tell me whether he's really joking.
The main point of this story from The Hill is that Chris Christie, a Mitt Romney supporter and surrogate, went on Meet the Press and insulted Newt Gingrich ("This is a guy that's had a very difficult career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party") -- despite the fact that Gingrich appeared on the same Meet the Press broadcast, and despite the fact that Gingrich could be the presidential nominee of Christie's party. (The latter suggests to me that, as I've said before, the GOP establishment really might not back Gingrich if he's the nominee, treating him the way the party treated David Duke when he made it to the general election in the Louisiana governor's race years ago. The party might try to secure the Americans Elect line for an establishment Republican instead.)
But beyond that, there's a quote from Christie that's interesting if you think the man he's endorsed, Mitt Romney, is still a likely GOP nominee, although the Hill reporter draws exactly the wrong conclusion:
In the same interview Christie shot down the possibility of joining Romney on the Republican presidential ticket if the former Massachusetts governor won the nomination. He said he would listen if Romney offered him the job but, as of now, he plans to stick in his current job....
"I absolutely believe that come November 2012 I'm going to be governor of New Jersey," Christie said.
Excuse me, but that's a very clever weasel-word answer, for the simple reason that Christie's still going to be governor of New Jersey in November 2012 even if he's on the ticket and it wins, because he wouldn't be sworn in as VP until January 2013.
Say what you will about Christie, he's not Rick Perry -- I'm sure he knows exactly what he's saying when he says that. So, yeah, he wants it.
And if you doubt that, go to the transcript:
GOV. CHRISTIE: ... Now as for the vice presidency, let me say again, I want to be governor of New Jersey. I ran to be governor of New Jersey. I absolutely believe that come November 2012 I'm going to be governor of New Jersey and not in any other office. The fact of the matter is, if Governor Romney, who's going to be our nominee, picked up the phone and called me to talk about this, I love my country enough and I love my party enough to listen, but in the end, David, if you were a betting guy--and I know you are, I know you are, David. If you're a betting guy, you should bet Chris Christie being the governor of New Jersey in November 2012.
Well, I'd take that bet, just as I would have taken a bet that Joe Biden would still be the senior senator from Delaware in November 2008 -- just not two months later.
I think Christie's at the top of Romney's short list -- or he's trying to get there.
****
By the way, the exchange (with interviewer David Gregory) gets a bit sickening:
MR. GREGORY: But you said once, who would want me as a number two?
GOV. CHRISTIE: Well, I still feel that way.
MR. GREGORY: But you'd be a good vice president, wouldn't you?
GOV. CHRISTIE: Oh, listen, I think that certain personalities...
MR. GREGORY: Not to appeal to your ego or anything.
GOV. CHRISTIE: No, listen...
MR. GREGORY: I'm saying you'd be wonderful, wouldn't you?
"You'd be wonderful"? There's your liberal media, folks. I mean, yeah, he smiles when he says this -- watch it in the clip at about 9:00 -- but you tell me whether he's really joking.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
BRING US TOGETHER? GINGRICH?
Here's an interesting point made by mistermix after he watch Newt Gingrich's victory speech -- interesting, but I don't quite buy it:
...if Newt is the candidate, he's going to drive the discussion into all the nooks and crannies of noise and diversion that have occupied Fox News viewers since Obama's victory. In other words, Newt is the candidate of the 2009 media cycle, where the Tea Party dominated media coverage. If Romney is the candidate, a big part of the discussion will be how he managed to pay 15% tax on the millions he made. He's the candidate of the 2011 media cycle, dominated by Occupy Wall Street and issues of jobs and equity.
Even though it would appear that Newt's candidacy is better for the establishment, establishment Republicans are going to try to snuff out his campaign ... what's so bad for the establishment about having a shit-slinger like Newt take attention away from the unfairness of eternal tax cuts? He guarantees that the issues of the election will all be sideshow trivia: Obama will be explaining why he isn't like Saul Alinsky, the media will be explaining why they aren't traitors, and Paul Krugman will be explaining what "fiat currency" means.
Yeah, but what the tea party, the Kochs, and Muroch/Ailes did in 2009-2010 was appropriate for winning a midterm election, not a presidential election. In a midterm election -- and this applies to Gingrich's own big win in 1994 -- you fire up the base and count on an especially diminished turnout by the other side (after all, lots of people just don't vote in midterms anyway). Anger works.
In a presidential election, you have to make voters in the middle think you're reasonable and the other guy is off base and extreme. Obama did that in '08. Clinton did it in '96. Obama can do it again -- though Romney is positioning himself so he can (gently) marginalize Obama. And the result is that people don't like Romney, but he still polls much better against Obama than Gingrich does (in fact, of the four remaining Republicans Romney polls best against Obama and Gingrichy polls worst.)
And presidential elections are personality-driven. Reagan was a red-meat partisan who made his backers hate liberals and Democrats, but he came off to a lot of people in the middle as a folksy grandpa. George W. Bush was a pretty nasty partisan himself, but he concealed his leanings to some extent in 2000 and wrapped his ideology in the flag in '04 to win over swing voters such as the "security moms," who thought he was just a patriotic Boy Scout selflessly protecting us from the evildoers. Hard to imagine Gingrich pulling anything like that off. I don't even think he can fake a message of "Bring Us Together" the way Nixon did in '68.
And as for Romney as plutocrat, well, I still say the American people are far less class-conscious than they ought to be. Even the people who are paying very little attention right now probably know that Romney is an ex-businessman, and if America were in sync with Occupy Wall Street, that alone would be killing him. But it isn't. We still love CEOs. We still think "job creators" might save us.
Here's an interesting point made by mistermix after he watch Newt Gingrich's victory speech -- interesting, but I don't quite buy it:
...if Newt is the candidate, he's going to drive the discussion into all the nooks and crannies of noise and diversion that have occupied Fox News viewers since Obama's victory. In other words, Newt is the candidate of the 2009 media cycle, where the Tea Party dominated media coverage. If Romney is the candidate, a big part of the discussion will be how he managed to pay 15% tax on the millions he made. He's the candidate of the 2011 media cycle, dominated by Occupy Wall Street and issues of jobs and equity.
Even though it would appear that Newt's candidacy is better for the establishment, establishment Republicans are going to try to snuff out his campaign ... what's so bad for the establishment about having a shit-slinger like Newt take attention away from the unfairness of eternal tax cuts? He guarantees that the issues of the election will all be sideshow trivia: Obama will be explaining why he isn't like Saul Alinsky, the media will be explaining why they aren't traitors, and Paul Krugman will be explaining what "fiat currency" means.
Yeah, but what the tea party, the Kochs, and Muroch/Ailes did in 2009-2010 was appropriate for winning a midterm election, not a presidential election. In a midterm election -- and this applies to Gingrich's own big win in 1994 -- you fire up the base and count on an especially diminished turnout by the other side (after all, lots of people just don't vote in midterms anyway). Anger works.
In a presidential election, you have to make voters in the middle think you're reasonable and the other guy is off base and extreme. Obama did that in '08. Clinton did it in '96. Obama can do it again -- though Romney is positioning himself so he can (gently) marginalize Obama. And the result is that people don't like Romney, but he still polls much better against Obama than Gingrich does (in fact, of the four remaining Republicans Romney polls best against Obama and Gingrichy polls worst.)
And presidential elections are personality-driven. Reagan was a red-meat partisan who made his backers hate liberals and Democrats, but he came off to a lot of people in the middle as a folksy grandpa. George W. Bush was a pretty nasty partisan himself, but he concealed his leanings to some extent in 2000 and wrapped his ideology in the flag in '04 to win over swing voters such as the "security moms," who thought he was just a patriotic Boy Scout selflessly protecting us from the evildoers. Hard to imagine Gingrich pulling anything like that off. I don't even think he can fake a message of "Bring Us Together" the way Nixon did in '68.
And as for Romney as plutocrat, well, I still say the American people are far less class-conscious than they ought to be. Even the people who are paying very little attention right now probably know that Romney is an ex-businessman, and if America were in sync with Occupy Wall Street, that alone would be killing him. But it isn't. We still love CEOs. We still think "job creators" might save us.
GOP CRAZY BASE VOTERS THINK THE REST OF US ARE AS CRAZY AS THEY ARE
Yes, South Carolina Republican voters gave Newt Gingrich a decisive victory, but please note a particular reason they gave for picking Newt:
Of those who think beating Mr. Obama is the most important candidate quality, Mr. Gingrich wins nearly half of the votes, the most of any of the Republican candidates.
And voters in South Carolina were more likely than voters in New Hampshire to say that beating Mr. Obama was the most important quality in a Republican candidate.
Dave Weigel elaborates:
Forty-five percent of voters ranked "can defeat Obama" as the supremo quality they want in a nominee. Gingrich won them over Romney, 51-37. Why? Tony Shipley, a Tennessee state representative who runs Newt's campaign there, explained it to me. "He will LACERATE Obama in a debate. He will absolutely ANNIHILATE him."
So what these people are saying is that they think independents and even some Democrats will respond favorably in the fall if Newt Gingrich treats Barack Obama the way he treated Juan Williams and John King. They think going medieval on a guy a lot of people think is likable even though they don't agree with him personally is a winning strategy.
I have no desire to disabuse them of this notion. I hope they sustain it all the way to the convention, and beyond.
Yes, South Carolina Republican voters gave Newt Gingrich a decisive victory, but please note a particular reason they gave for picking Newt:
Of those who think beating Mr. Obama is the most important candidate quality, Mr. Gingrich wins nearly half of the votes, the most of any of the Republican candidates.
And voters in South Carolina were more likely than voters in New Hampshire to say that beating Mr. Obama was the most important quality in a Republican candidate.
Dave Weigel elaborates:
Forty-five percent of voters ranked "can defeat Obama" as the supremo quality they want in a nominee. Gingrich won them over Romney, 51-37. Why? Tony Shipley, a Tennessee state representative who runs Newt's campaign there, explained it to me. "He will LACERATE Obama in a debate. He will absolutely ANNIHILATE him."
So what these people are saying is that they think independents and even some Democrats will respond favorably in the fall if Newt Gingrich treats Barack Obama the way he treated Juan Williams and John King. They think going medieval on a guy a lot of people think is likable even though they don't agree with him personally is a winning strategy.
I have no desire to disabuse them of this notion. I hope they sustain it all the way to the convention, and beyond.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
FIGURES LIE AND CHARLES MURRAY FIGURES
Charles Murray has an article in The Wall Street Journal (adapted from his forthcoming book) in which he argues that there's a "new American divide" between cultural elitists and everyone else; everyone else, he says, is suffering because of this divide, and there's nothing government or corporations can do about it, because the big problem is that the cultural elites are so darn elitist. He describes the two American tribes as the elitist "Belmont" and the downscale "Fishtown":
If you were an executive living in Belmont in 1960, income inequality would have separated you from the construction worker in Fishtown, but remarkably little cultural inequality. You lived a more expensive life, but not a much different life. Your kitchen was bigger, but you didn't use it to prepare yogurt and muesli for breakfast. Your television screen was bigger, but you and the construction worker watched a lot of the same shows (you didn't have much choice). Your house might have had a den that the construction worker's lacked, but it had no StairMaster or lap pool, nor any gadget to monitor your percentage of body fat. You both drank Bud, Miller, Schlitz or Pabst, and the phrase "boutique beer" never crossed your lips.
Um, really? Didn't Hugh Hefner devote pretty much every non-naked page of Playboy back in 1960 to telling the (presumably) upscale reader of the magazine what high-end hooch to drink, what spiffy car to drive, what clothes would make women think he was James Bond, etc., etc.?
Ah, but you may be thinking, "Well, of course blue-collar and white-collar people were more alike half a century ago -- there wasn't as much of a wage gap!" Silly you, says Murray:
It's not that white working class males can no longer make a "family wage" that enables them to marry. The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960.
Well, I'd like to see the source material for that assertion. All I can say is that it doesn't jibe with anything I've observed in America in my 52 years. This is what I've observed:
Once upon a time, a large number [of blue-collar and service workers] earned at least $20 an hour, or its inflation-adjusted equivalent, and now so many of them don't.
The $20 hourly wage, introduced on a huge scale in the middle of the last century, allowed masses of Americans with no more than a high school education to rise to the middle class. It was a marker, of sorts. And it is on its way to extinction....
That basic wage blossomed first in the auto industry in 1948....
The high point came in the 1970s.... Since then the percentage of people earning at least $20 an hour has eroded in every sector of the economy, falling last year to 18 percent of all hourly workers from 23 percent in 1979 -- a gradual unwinding of the post-World War II gains.
The decline is greatest in manufacturing, where only 1.9 million hourly workers still earn that much. That's down nearly 60 percent since 1979, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
Oh, no, Murray says. We can't blame employers greed or government policies that favor the rich. It's all your fault, craft-beer-drinking scum. It's your fault the proles commit crimes and don't get married.
What's the solution?
You have to become a nation of people who wag your fingers like David Brooks!
There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need -- not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending "nonjudgmentalism." Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.
Scold your inferiors! Yeah, that'll work!
Charles Murray has an article in The Wall Street Journal (adapted from his forthcoming book) in which he argues that there's a "new American divide" between cultural elitists and everyone else; everyone else, he says, is suffering because of this divide, and there's nothing government or corporations can do about it, because the big problem is that the cultural elites are so darn elitist. He describes the two American tribes as the elitist "Belmont" and the downscale "Fishtown":
If you were an executive living in Belmont in 1960, income inequality would have separated you from the construction worker in Fishtown, but remarkably little cultural inequality. You lived a more expensive life, but not a much different life. Your kitchen was bigger, but you didn't use it to prepare yogurt and muesli for breakfast. Your television screen was bigger, but you and the construction worker watched a lot of the same shows (you didn't have much choice). Your house might have had a den that the construction worker's lacked, but it had no StairMaster or lap pool, nor any gadget to monitor your percentage of body fat. You both drank Bud, Miller, Schlitz or Pabst, and the phrase "boutique beer" never crossed your lips.
Um, really? Didn't Hugh Hefner devote pretty much every non-naked page of Playboy back in 1960 to telling the (presumably) upscale reader of the magazine what high-end hooch to drink, what spiffy car to drive, what clothes would make women think he was James Bond, etc., etc.?
Ah, but you may be thinking, "Well, of course blue-collar and white-collar people were more alike half a century ago -- there wasn't as much of a wage gap!" Silly you, says Murray:
It's not that white working class males can no longer make a "family wage" that enables them to marry. The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960.
Well, I'd like to see the source material for that assertion. All I can say is that it doesn't jibe with anything I've observed in America in my 52 years. This is what I've observed:
Once upon a time, a large number [of blue-collar and service workers] earned at least $20 an hour, or its inflation-adjusted equivalent, and now so many of them don't.
The $20 hourly wage, introduced on a huge scale in the middle of the last century, allowed masses of Americans with no more than a high school education to rise to the middle class. It was a marker, of sorts. And it is on its way to extinction....
That basic wage blossomed first in the auto industry in 1948....
The high point came in the 1970s.... Since then the percentage of people earning at least $20 an hour has eroded in every sector of the economy, falling last year to 18 percent of all hourly workers from 23 percent in 1979 -- a gradual unwinding of the post-World War II gains.
The decline is greatest in manufacturing, where only 1.9 million hourly workers still earn that much. That's down nearly 60 percent since 1979, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
Oh, no, Murray says. We can't blame employers greed or government policies that favor the rich. It's all your fault, craft-beer-drinking scum. It's your fault the proles commit crimes and don't get married.
What's the solution?
You have to become a nation of people who wag your fingers like David Brooks!
There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need -- not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending "nonjudgmentalism." Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.
Scold your inferiors! Yeah, that'll work!
A BLIND ROMNEY FINDS A NUT
Mitt Romney is a much weaker natural politician than Newt Gingrich, but really, folks, Gingrich has only one strength, and Mitt Romney, after flailing around, has finally figured out how to combat it, apparently:
Mitt Romney leaves NBC Florida Republican debate uncertain
NBC is denying reports that it plans to cancel this Monday's GOP debate in Tampa Bay, Florida, because Mitt Romney has not yet committed to participating.....
But as of this afternoon, NBC has left the standard Monday program listings in place -- "Fear Factor" at 9 p.m. and "Rock Center" at 10 p.m. -- a decision the network attributs to an abundance of caution....
Campaign sources say they are unaware of any cancellation, but Romney's unwillingness to commit could leave the debate's status in question....
Debates are all Newt's got. If it's a TV-ad campaign (as Florida certainly will be without debates), Romney's going to outspend Gingrich and that will be that. And Gingrich makes a lot more mistakes when he's off the debate stage -- criticizing Paul Ryan, launching an attack on Romney as a capitalist -- that he does when he's on.
Sure, voters clamor for the red meat at the debates -- but will they miss them when they're gone? They've had twenty-three of these damn things already -- I really don't think they'll demand a twenty-fourth, even if Gingrich's campaign is chasing Romney around with a campaign staffer in a chicken suit. (There'll be pressure in the political media as well, and Romney might foolishly succumb to it, though if he does, he's a fool.)
But I'm wondering why the debate seems to be on the verge of being canceled altogether -- you know Gingrich and Paul, at least, are going to keep campaigning after South Carolina along with Romney. If you think these debates fulfill a civic duty to inform the public, why not just let Mitt and Ron (and perhaps Rick) go at it without Mitt? (And won't the ratings be good if the crazy GOP base anticipates more red meat from Newt?)
Well, maybe the GOP, in conjunction with the Romney campaign, has had the good sense to coordinate this: Mitt drops out of the debate and then the party, gently but firmly, urges NBC not to go forward. The party's leaders also must have finally figured out that this is how you shut down Gingrich.
There are, God help us, five more debates scheduled after the next one -- one in Florida at the end of the month, and four more in late February and March. All of those are co-sponsored by state Republican Party organizations or, in one case, by the Reagan Library. My guess is that these establishment types are all going to have the sudden revelation that debating time is over in their party. I think we'll see a wave of cancellations. Really, are these establishmentarians going to let Gingrich win it?
*****
UPDATE, SUNDAY: Never mind -- Romney will participate in both Florida debates. I think he's crazy. I think the GOP establishment is crazy. Just strong-arm the process, shut the damn things down, and let the anti-Romneys howl.
Mitt Romney is a much weaker natural politician than Newt Gingrich, but really, folks, Gingrich has only one strength, and Mitt Romney, after flailing around, has finally figured out how to combat it, apparently:
Mitt Romney leaves NBC Florida Republican debate uncertain
NBC is denying reports that it plans to cancel this Monday's GOP debate in Tampa Bay, Florida, because Mitt Romney has not yet committed to participating.....
But as of this afternoon, NBC has left the standard Monday program listings in place -- "Fear Factor" at 9 p.m. and "Rock Center" at 10 p.m. -- a decision the network attributs to an abundance of caution....
Campaign sources say they are unaware of any cancellation, but Romney's unwillingness to commit could leave the debate's status in question....
Debates are all Newt's got. If it's a TV-ad campaign (as Florida certainly will be without debates), Romney's going to outspend Gingrich and that will be that. And Gingrich makes a lot more mistakes when he's off the debate stage -- criticizing Paul Ryan, launching an attack on Romney as a capitalist -- that he does when he's on.
Sure, voters clamor for the red meat at the debates -- but will they miss them when they're gone? They've had twenty-three of these damn things already -- I really don't think they'll demand a twenty-fourth, even if Gingrich's campaign is chasing Romney around with a campaign staffer in a chicken suit. (There'll be pressure in the political media as well, and Romney might foolishly succumb to it, though if he does, he's a fool.)
But I'm wondering why the debate seems to be on the verge of being canceled altogether -- you know Gingrich and Paul, at least, are going to keep campaigning after South Carolina along with Romney. If you think these debates fulfill a civic duty to inform the public, why not just let Mitt and Ron (and perhaps Rick) go at it without Mitt? (And won't the ratings be good if the crazy GOP base anticipates more red meat from Newt?)
Well, maybe the GOP, in conjunction with the Romney campaign, has had the good sense to coordinate this: Mitt drops out of the debate and then the party, gently but firmly, urges NBC not to go forward. The party's leaders also must have finally figured out that this is how you shut down Gingrich.
There are, God help us, five more debates scheduled after the next one -- one in Florida at the end of the month, and four more in late February and March. All of those are co-sponsored by state Republican Party organizations or, in one case, by the Reagan Library. My guess is that these establishment types are all going to have the sudden revelation that debating time is over in their party. I think we'll see a wave of cancellations. Really, are these establishmentarians going to let Gingrich win it?
*****
UPDATE, SUNDAY: Never mind -- Romney will participate in both Florida debates. I think he's crazy. I think the GOP establishment is crazy. Just strong-arm the process, shut the damn things down, and let the anti-Romneys howl.
Friday, January 20, 2012
A SHRINK'S DISPATCH FROM THE MURDOCH MINISTRY OF TRUTH
Keith Ablow is a right-wing psychiatrist who appears regularly on Fox News; he also co-authored a parenting book with Glenn Beck. Now he's written an opinion piece for FoxNews.com entitled -- wait for it -- "Newt Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make a Strong President -- Really." Here's Ablow's reasoning -- and I hope you're sitting down for this:
1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.
Yes, America, we all share their terrible taste in men!
Wait, there's more:
4) Two women -- Mr. Gingrich's first two wives -- have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.
Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.
Wow. Just wow. Um, so does this mean that, after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, when we felt the need to be merciless to foreign enemies, we should have elected a president who was a wife-killer?
Here's my question: Does Ablow actually believe any of this nonsense? Or are you just assigned to write pieces like this when you walk into the Fox News offices every day, the way Winston Smith gets assigned to rewrite stories for the newspapers of Oceania?
(Via Rod Dreher, who for all his faults, is also appalled.)
Keith Ablow is a right-wing psychiatrist who appears regularly on Fox News; he also co-authored a parenting book with Glenn Beck. Now he's written an opinion piece for FoxNews.com entitled -- wait for it -- "Newt Gingrich's Three Marriages Mean He Might Make a Strong President -- Really." Here's Ablow's reasoning -- and I hope you're sitting down for this:
1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.
Yes, America, we all share their terrible taste in men!
Wait, there's more:
4) Two women -- Mr. Gingrich's first two wives -- have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.
Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.
Wow. Just wow. Um, so does this mean that, after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, when we felt the need to be merciless to foreign enemies, we should have elected a president who was a wife-killer?
Here's my question: Does Ablow actually believe any of this nonsense? Or are you just assigned to write pieces like this when you walk into the Fox News offices every day, the way Winston Smith gets assigned to rewrite stories for the newspapers of Oceania?
(Via Rod Dreher, who for all his faults, is also appalled.)
WAIT -- THIS IS THE SLICK, PROFESSIONAL CAMPAIGN WITH THE EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE?
Just up at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):
In a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Friday, Mitt Romney floated several names of politicians who he believes would make good running mates for the eventual GOP presidential nominee.
When asked by Hannity who would make "anybody's short list," Romney ticked off the names of many Republican governors, including Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Bob McDonnell of Virginia. He also named two former governors-- Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota....
Really, Mitt? Haley Barbour? A guy who's pardoned eight men who killed their wives or girlfriends, two of them earlier this month as part of a 215-person pardon-palooza that included 27 people convicted of murder or manslaughter? A guy who, now that he's left office, is moving back instantly to his former extremely lucrative career as a lobbyist, as well as a speaker earning five figures per corporate speech? You mentioned him today, Mitt?
And you're the "electable" Republican? The one with the best chance of winning?
Just up at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):
In a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Friday, Mitt Romney floated several names of politicians who he believes would make good running mates for the eventual GOP presidential nominee.
When asked by Hannity who would make "anybody's short list," Romney ticked off the names of many Republican governors, including Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Bob McDonnell of Virginia. He also named two former governors-- Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota....
Really, Mitt? Haley Barbour? A guy who's pardoned eight men who killed their wives or girlfriends, two of them earlier this month as part of a 215-person pardon-palooza that included 27 people convicted of murder or manslaughter? A guy who, now that he's left office, is moving back instantly to his former extremely lucrative career as a lobbyist, as well as a speaker earning five figures per corporate speech? You mentioned him today, Mitt?
And you're the "electable" Republican? The one with the best chance of winning?
THE THINGS YOU THINK ARE PRECIOUS I CAN'T UNDERSTAND
Just the description of the following clip will be enough to tell you how obnoxious it is:
Appearing at a Winthrop University panel Thursday, MSNBC host and NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd ripped into Stephen Colbert and his not-yet-official run, suggesting that Colbert might have some ulterior motives in the way he’s almost throwing his hat into the GOP primary ring:
But you have to watch this clip all the way to the end to appreciate the full extent of its awfulness -- you have to get to the part where Todd says:
... I worry we're going to trivialize our institutions, make people more cynical, raise an entire generation that's even more cynical than they are now, to the point where we have already demonized institutions that, frankly, I do idolize. I idolize the institution of the United States Senate and the United States House. I'm sorry that there are a lot of people there that don't idolize that the same way.
OK, fine, Chuck -- I understand having reverence for what our institutions of government have been at their best, and over our entire history. But you idolize them now? You idolize Congress as it exists today? If so, you're nuts.
And I'm not sure how on earth this connects to Stephen Colbert mocking the 2012 presidential election, which now features four Republicans and one Democrat, three of whom used to be in Congress and aren't anymore, and one of whom has never been in Congress. But no, that's a separate point -- somehow, according to Todd, if voters take a comedy candidacy seriously, and prefer to vote for the comic rather than for any of the "serious" candidates, it's the comic's fault, even though the comic is just tapping into a disillusionment that already exists.
And no, I don't know how the hell Todd arrives at the conclusion that Colbert can possibly marginalize an entire major political party just by making jokes about it.
Todd concludes by saying:
But I also think that this ideological fight sometimes between the two parties is a good thing for the system. You know, yes, we're still trying to figure out how to cover it in this new way of covering things, and I think the minute-by-minute certainly isn't healthy for the system. But over time it has worked, and you know, I just worry about this overparodizing [sic] of the process, where -- and we wonder -- we complain now that we feel like the most qualified people decide not to run because they don't want to be the butt of jokes. Well, I think this is going to exasperate [sic] the process.
Oh, right. It's not the endless need to fundraise; it's not the super PAC corruption; it's not the Fox-fueled, talk-radio-fueled ideological war to the death that takes place as our country goes down the crapper -- no, none of that is why "the most qualified people" won't run, according to Chuck Todd. The reason is one guy who tells jokes. Colbert's the whole problem.
(Clip via Huffington Post.)
Just the description of the following clip will be enough to tell you how obnoxious it is:
Appearing at a Winthrop University panel Thursday, MSNBC host and NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd ripped into Stephen Colbert and his not-yet-official run, suggesting that Colbert might have some ulterior motives in the way he’s almost throwing his hat into the GOP primary ring:
"Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he's doing it in a way that it feels as if he's trying to influence it with his own agenda, that may be anti-Republican. And we in the media are covering it as a schtick and a satire, but it’s like, 'Well wait a minute here...' he's also trying to do his best to marginalize the candidates, and we're participating in that marginalization."
Todd said that the "mainstream media" (his quotes) has a responsibility to exercise some caution and question what Colbert's agenda is. "Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money in politics and what's going on?" He asked, "or is it simply to marginalize the Republican party? I think if I were a Republican candidate, I'd be concerned about that."
But you have to watch this clip all the way to the end to appreciate the full extent of its awfulness -- you have to get to the part where Todd says:
... I worry we're going to trivialize our institutions, make people more cynical, raise an entire generation that's even more cynical than they are now, to the point where we have already demonized institutions that, frankly, I do idolize. I idolize the institution of the United States Senate and the United States House. I'm sorry that there are a lot of people there that don't idolize that the same way.
OK, fine, Chuck -- I understand having reverence for what our institutions of government have been at their best, and over our entire history. But you idolize them now? You idolize Congress as it exists today? If so, you're nuts.
And I'm not sure how on earth this connects to Stephen Colbert mocking the 2012 presidential election, which now features four Republicans and one Democrat, three of whom used to be in Congress and aren't anymore, and one of whom has never been in Congress. But no, that's a separate point -- somehow, according to Todd, if voters take a comedy candidacy seriously, and prefer to vote for the comic rather than for any of the "serious" candidates, it's the comic's fault, even though the comic is just tapping into a disillusionment that already exists.
And no, I don't know how the hell Todd arrives at the conclusion that Colbert can possibly marginalize an entire major political party just by making jokes about it.
Todd concludes by saying:
But I also think that this ideological fight sometimes between the two parties is a good thing for the system. You know, yes, we're still trying to figure out how to cover it in this new way of covering things, and I think the minute-by-minute certainly isn't healthy for the system. But over time it has worked, and you know, I just worry about this overparodizing [sic] of the process, where -- and we wonder -- we complain now that we feel like the most qualified people decide not to run because they don't want to be the butt of jokes. Well, I think this is going to exasperate [sic] the process.
Oh, right. It's not the endless need to fundraise; it's not the super PAC corruption; it's not the Fox-fueled, talk-radio-fueled ideological war to the death that takes place as our country goes down the crapper -- no, none of that is why "the most qualified people" won't run, according to Chuck Todd. The reason is one guy who tells jokes. Colbert's the whole problem.
(Clip via Huffington Post.)
THEY WANNA KILL SOMETHING
I've seen versions of this image for the past forty years. It's a classic bit of pop culture:
And it's basically the way Republican voters feel right now (and pretty much all the time), which is why Newt Gingrich is doing so well, and Mitt Romney isn't.
Steve Kornacki explains why Gingrich's attack on CNN's John King for a question about Newt's ex-wife was such a hit with the debate crowd last night:
It's no mystery why the audience of Republicans so instinctively and passionately rallied to Gingrich's defense. His final line was the key: that the liberal media is out to get Republicans and will stop at nothing to destroy them is an absolute article of faith on the right....
What Gingrich did brilliantly on Thursday night is to articulate this paranoid victimhood in a clear and compelling (for his audience, at least) way. It's the same basic trick he pulled in this week's other debate, when he connected with another strain of the persecution complex: that honest, tax-paying Republicans are the victims of a dependency class of poor people and minorities that Democrats intentionally enable. Thus did Monday's crowd rejoice when Gingrich insisted to Fox News' Juan Williams that there was nothing remotely insulting about his statement that the NAACP should be asking for paychecks instead of food stamps, or his suggestion that children in poor neighborhoods don’t understand the value of work.
Kornacki doesn't say it outright, so I will: Yes, the "liberal media" is a favorite wingnut target, but the key here is that he attacked the media head-on, face-to-face, on both occasions. (In the case of Williams, he was also attacking a black man head-on after that black man talked about racism -- very satisfying.) This debate is supposed to be part of a process of choosing a president who'll take the oath of office next year, but Republican voters have no patience -- they want to kill something now.
Gingrich did that. In each case, he had a "liberal media" guy sitting right in front of him and he whaled on him.
This is what Mitt Romney doesn't do when he talks about his wealth and his business career and his taxes -- as I said earlier this morning, the voters have his back on this to some extent, but what they want him to do is use questions about his money as an opportunity to kill something, now.
They don't want him to say, Look, Obama's going to engage in class war eventually, so don't you guys up here on the stage with me help him do that, which is his basic message on this. They want him to find someone to pound on immediately.
What Romney needs to do is turn the question on the questioner and say, "You are engaging in class warfare just by asking me this, you liberal media commie scumbag. You are the problem. You hate freedom."
C'mon, Mitt -- don't delay their gratification!
(Kornacki link via Steve Benen. X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
I've seen versions of this image for the past forty years. It's a classic bit of pop culture:
And it's basically the way Republican voters feel right now (and pretty much all the time), which is why Newt Gingrich is doing so well, and Mitt Romney isn't.
Steve Kornacki explains why Gingrich's attack on CNN's John King for a question about Newt's ex-wife was such a hit with the debate crowd last night:
It's no mystery why the audience of Republicans so instinctively and passionately rallied to Gingrich's defense. His final line was the key: that the liberal media is out to get Republicans and will stop at nothing to destroy them is an absolute article of faith on the right....
What Gingrich did brilliantly on Thursday night is to articulate this paranoid victimhood in a clear and compelling (for his audience, at least) way. It's the same basic trick he pulled in this week's other debate, when he connected with another strain of the persecution complex: that honest, tax-paying Republicans are the victims of a dependency class of poor people and minorities that Democrats intentionally enable. Thus did Monday's crowd rejoice when Gingrich insisted to Fox News' Juan Williams that there was nothing remotely insulting about his statement that the NAACP should be asking for paychecks instead of food stamps, or his suggestion that children in poor neighborhoods don’t understand the value of work.
Kornacki doesn't say it outright, so I will: Yes, the "liberal media" is a favorite wingnut target, but the key here is that he attacked the media head-on, face-to-face, on both occasions. (In the case of Williams, he was also attacking a black man head-on after that black man talked about racism -- very satisfying.) This debate is supposed to be part of a process of choosing a president who'll take the oath of office next year, but Republican voters have no patience -- they want to kill something now.
Gingrich did that. In each case, he had a "liberal media" guy sitting right in front of him and he whaled on him.
This is what Mitt Romney doesn't do when he talks about his wealth and his business career and his taxes -- as I said earlier this morning, the voters have his back on this to some extent, but what they want him to do is use questions about his money as an opportunity to kill something, now.
They don't want him to say, Look, Obama's going to engage in class war eventually, so don't you guys up here on the stage with me help him do that, which is his basic message on this. They want him to find someone to pound on immediately.
What Romney needs to do is turn the question on the questioner and say, "You are engaging in class warfare just by asking me this, you liberal media commie scumbag. You are the problem. You hate freedom."
C'mon, Mitt -- don't delay their gratification!
(Kornacki link via Steve Benen. X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
RIGHT NOW, ROMNEY CAN'T WIN FOR LOSING
I missed most of last night's debate, but I just watched the full-six minute clip of the candidates being asked about releasing their tax returns. Number of time Mitt Romney gets a round of applause? Six. Number of times he's booed? Once, briefly, and by only a few people.
Headline? "Republican Debate Audience Boos Mitt Romney Over Releasing Tax Returns."
Don't misjudge what's going on from the headline. These voters don't have any problem whatsoever with his wealth, or however he made it -- they just want to nominate they believe will kick ass mercilessly in November.
Watch the clip. Romney gets a bit of applause around 1:46 when he attacks Obama for playing golf. Bizarrely, he gets another round of applause starting at 2:50 when he says, "I obviously pay all full taxes. I'm honest in my dealings with people. People understand that." (Really? That's an applause line to Republicans?) One or two people actually clap when, in response to being asked whether he'll release tax returns for multiple years, he says, "Maybe" (4:34) -- though the boos and catcalls start a few seconds later. But then he gets a big round of applause (5:01) when he says, "I know the Democrats want to go after the fact that I've been successful. I'm not going to apologize for being successful." And then there's another round of applause (5:31) when he says, "What I have, I earned." And another one starts just as the clip ends (5:52), when he says -- well, this is from the transcript:
And I'm going to be able -- I'm going to be able to talk to President Obama in a way no one else can that's in this race right now, about how the free economy works, what it takes to put Americans back to work, and make sure he understands that this divisiveness and dividing Americans between 99 and 1 is dangerous. We are one nation under God. (Cheers, applause.)
Republicans have no problem whatsoever with Romney being a rich guy who pays low taxes and denies that we have a society with two sets of economic rules. They even like his ability to mythologize and romanticize capitalism (and himself as a capitalist). But they want a guy they feel certain is going to be able to grind Barack Obama into the dust. They fear Romney could be vulnerable -- vulnerable to the hated Obama -- and they want reassurance that he isn't. That's it.
I missed most of last night's debate, but I just watched the full-six minute clip of the candidates being asked about releasing their tax returns. Number of time Mitt Romney gets a round of applause? Six. Number of times he's booed? Once, briefly, and by only a few people.
Headline? "Republican Debate Audience Boos Mitt Romney Over Releasing Tax Returns."
Don't misjudge what's going on from the headline. These voters don't have any problem whatsoever with his wealth, or however he made it -- they just want to nominate they believe will kick ass mercilessly in November.
Watch the clip. Romney gets a bit of applause around 1:46 when he attacks Obama for playing golf. Bizarrely, he gets another round of applause starting at 2:50 when he says, "I obviously pay all full taxes. I'm honest in my dealings with people. People understand that." (Really? That's an applause line to Republicans?) One or two people actually clap when, in response to being asked whether he'll release tax returns for multiple years, he says, "Maybe" (4:34) -- though the boos and catcalls start a few seconds later. But then he gets a big round of applause (5:01) when he says, "I know the Democrats want to go after the fact that I've been successful. I'm not going to apologize for being successful." And then there's another round of applause (5:31) when he says, "What I have, I earned." And another one starts just as the clip ends (5:52), when he says -- well, this is from the transcript:
And I'm going to be able -- I'm going to be able to talk to President Obama in a way no one else can that's in this race right now, about how the free economy works, what it takes to put Americans back to work, and make sure he understands that this divisiveness and dividing Americans between 99 and 1 is dangerous. We are one nation under God. (Cheers, applause.)
Republicans have no problem whatsoever with Romney being a rich guy who pays low taxes and denies that we have a society with two sets of economic rules. They even like his ability to mythologize and romanticize capitalism (and himself as a capitalist). But they want a guy they feel certain is going to be able to grind Barack Obama into the dust. They fear Romney could be vulnerable -- vulnerable to the hated Obama -- and they want reassurance that he isn't. That's it.
0 FOR THE DAY
I caught the Gingrich story yesterday, got distracted by other obligations and missed the mood of the reaction (especially the GOP mood), then caught only a few minutes of the debate and missed the rest. I basically had a Rick Perry day, blogwise. I'll try to clean up the damage and start fresh today.
I caught the Gingrich story yesterday, got distracted by other obligations and missed the mood of the reaction (especially the GOP mood), then caught only a few minutes of the debate and missed the rest. I basically had a Rick Perry day, blogwise. I'll try to clean up the damage and start fresh today.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
SPOTTED WHILE STANDING IN LINE AT DUANE READE
This magazine cover. I've highlighted what caught my eye:
Sigh. This is how we do class consciousness in America.
This magazine cover. I've highlighted what caught my eye:
Sigh. This is how we do class consciousness in America.
UM, NEVER MIND
CNN's John King just opened with a question to Newt about Marianne Gingrich and Gingrich is tearing King a new one, to multiple ovations. So ignore what I just wrote. And GOP? More debates = ascendant Newt. Fewer debates = declining Newt. It's really simple. Do you want him to go away or not?
... Or maybe it's just another drunken tailgate party. They're cheering Romney, for heaven's sake. (On capitalism, sure, but still -- Romney!)
CNN's John King just opened with a question to Newt about Marianne Gingrich and Gingrich is tearing King a new one, to multiple ovations. So ignore what I just wrote. And GOP? More debates = ascendant Newt. Fewer debates = declining Newt. It's really simple. Do you want him to go away or not?
... Or maybe it's just another drunken tailgate party. They're cheering Romney, for heaven's sake. (On capitalism, sure, but still -- Romney!)
CUE THE '70S PR0N GUITARS
British right-wing apparatchik Toby Harnden thinks the ABC interview in which Newt Gingrich's second wife says he wanted an "open marriage" might actually help Newt's candidacy:
... Driving down to Charleston from Columbia for tonight's debate, I tuned into talk radio giants Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Both were railing against ABC and the mainstream media for what in their view is a cynically-timed hit job on Gingrich designed to smear a Republican candidate.... Sarah Palin came onto the Hannity show to make a similar point.
Both Limbaugh (who married his fourth wife in 2010) and Hannity (a once-married Catholic) declared Gingrich's personal life to be essentially off bounds, partly because it's ancient history and partly because, Hannity argued, Democrats like Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards were, to varying degrees, given passes by the liberal media....
Um, yeah -- except that three of those four Democrats never even came particularly close to winning the party's presidential nomination. Two of those three had their political careers permanently ruined by the sex charges. In Jackson's case, most Americans probably don't even know about the infidelity -- even Republicans have never made a big deal of it. The one Democrat on that list who got away with cheating did so in large part because his one and only wife never stopped supporting him.
Dave Weigel also thinks Newt might skate, also citing talk radio, as well as a couple of voters he met in South Carolina:
... "Everybody's had an angry ex-spouse!" said Limbaugh. Callers agreed with him, assuming that Marianne Gingrich was embittered and not to be trusted. "When a horse is dead, you dismount," suggested one Dittohead.
Limbaugh was only echoing a sentiment you can hear in the Republican base. There's still a sense, among some conservatives, that Herman Cain was unfairly brought down by lying, gold-digging women.
Um, yeah -- but Cain is out of the race, isn't he? Nobody forced GOP voters to abandon him. I once thought they might stand by him, but they didn't, did they.
Weigel quotes two voters -- both male, by the way, as are the talk show hosts quoted (maleness, of course, is a trait shared by only half of Republican voters):
"It's so old," grumbled Bert Benton, an accountant and self-described Reagan Democrat. "If she felt like this, so strongly, she could have talked about it months ago." (Note: She actually did, in an Esquire profile of the candidate.) "It's just like what happened to Herman Cain, or when someone has a relationship and then five years later says 'I was raped.'"
Jim Anthony, a probable Ron Paul voter who walked the rally with a "NO ROMNEY" sign ("he's soulless," he explained), flirted with the idea of approaching Gingrich in the receiving line and joking about the story -- "ask him, any advice for an open relationship?" But he decided against it. "It'd be tacky." Who cared about the story, anyway?
Um, yeah -- but those don't seem like the voters Gingrich has to worry about. Public Policy Polling did the first night of a tracking poll in South Carolina last night, and Gingrich led Romney 34%-28% -- pre-interview. A significant point here about Gingrich's voter base:
...he even has a 37-20 advantage with evangelicals.
The people he has to worry about are voters like this woman, who was featured in a story by Melissa Block on NPR last night:
BLOCK: Back at Gingrich headquarters, Sondra Ziegler steps into the kitchen to talk about her commitment as a conservative evangelical Christian to Newt Gingrich. After all, he's the candidate who, if you believe the negative ads, carries more baggage than the airlines. And she says his admitted infidelities and multiple marriages did give her pause.
ZIEGLER: You know, I think his is a story of redemption. And if he's asked forgiveness from God -- and I believe he has -- and if he's made peace with the people in his life that were hurt by that, then I don't know what more I can ask.
This is a home-schooler who traveled with her young kids all the way to South Carolina from Lubbock, Texas, to work for Gingrich. Think she's a tad disillusioned now that she knows that he hasn't made peace with all the people he hurt? And if she's too dug in to abandon Gingrich, what about the other Bible-thumpers he's attracted?
I'm no evangelical -- but I was a Catholic, and I know what Christianity teaches about God's forgiveness having the ability to wipe the slate clean. Yesterday, if you wanted to believe Gingrich was a godly man, you could tell yourself the slate was wiped clean. Today, not so much.
Also, "open marriage" is pretty '70s-sounding, no? It reeks of the post-'60s sexual revolution -- and you know how wingers feel about the '60s. If I were Romney's super Pac, I'd do an ad with wah-wah guitar music and Newt sporting a Harry Reems mustache. If the campaign bus is rockin', don't bother knockin'!
British right-wing apparatchik Toby Harnden thinks the ABC interview in which Newt Gingrich's second wife says he wanted an "open marriage" might actually help Newt's candidacy:
... Driving down to Charleston from Columbia for tonight's debate, I tuned into talk radio giants Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Both were railing against ABC and the mainstream media for what in their view is a cynically-timed hit job on Gingrich designed to smear a Republican candidate.... Sarah Palin came onto the Hannity show to make a similar point.
Both Limbaugh (who married his fourth wife in 2010) and Hannity (a once-married Catholic) declared Gingrich's personal life to be essentially off bounds, partly because it's ancient history and partly because, Hannity argued, Democrats like Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards were, to varying degrees, given passes by the liberal media....
Um, yeah -- except that three of those four Democrats never even came particularly close to winning the party's presidential nomination. Two of those three had their political careers permanently ruined by the sex charges. In Jackson's case, most Americans probably don't even know about the infidelity -- even Republicans have never made a big deal of it. The one Democrat on that list who got away with cheating did so in large part because his one and only wife never stopped supporting him.
Dave Weigel also thinks Newt might skate, also citing talk radio, as well as a couple of voters he met in South Carolina:
... "Everybody's had an angry ex-spouse!" said Limbaugh. Callers agreed with him, assuming that Marianne Gingrich was embittered and not to be trusted. "When a horse is dead, you dismount," suggested one Dittohead.
Limbaugh was only echoing a sentiment you can hear in the Republican base. There's still a sense, among some conservatives, that Herman Cain was unfairly brought down by lying, gold-digging women.
Um, yeah -- but Cain is out of the race, isn't he? Nobody forced GOP voters to abandon him. I once thought they might stand by him, but they didn't, did they.
Weigel quotes two voters -- both male, by the way, as are the talk show hosts quoted (maleness, of course, is a trait shared by only half of Republican voters):
"It's so old," grumbled Bert Benton, an accountant and self-described Reagan Democrat. "If she felt like this, so strongly, she could have talked about it months ago." (Note: She actually did, in an Esquire profile of the candidate.) "It's just like what happened to Herman Cain, or when someone has a relationship and then five years later says 'I was raped.'"
Jim Anthony, a probable Ron Paul voter who walked the rally with a "NO ROMNEY" sign ("he's soulless," he explained), flirted with the idea of approaching Gingrich in the receiving line and joking about the story -- "ask him, any advice for an open relationship?" But he decided against it. "It'd be tacky." Who cared about the story, anyway?
Um, yeah -- but those don't seem like the voters Gingrich has to worry about. Public Policy Polling did the first night of a tracking poll in South Carolina last night, and Gingrich led Romney 34%-28% -- pre-interview. A significant point here about Gingrich's voter base:
...he even has a 37-20 advantage with evangelicals.
The people he has to worry about are voters like this woman, who was featured in a story by Melissa Block on NPR last night:
BLOCK: Back at Gingrich headquarters, Sondra Ziegler steps into the kitchen to talk about her commitment as a conservative evangelical Christian to Newt Gingrich. After all, he's the candidate who, if you believe the negative ads, carries more baggage than the airlines. And she says his admitted infidelities and multiple marriages did give her pause.
ZIEGLER: You know, I think his is a story of redemption. And if he's asked forgiveness from God -- and I believe he has -- and if he's made peace with the people in his life that were hurt by that, then I don't know what more I can ask.
This is a home-schooler who traveled with her young kids all the way to South Carolina from Lubbock, Texas, to work for Gingrich. Think she's a tad disillusioned now that she knows that he hasn't made peace with all the people he hurt? And if she's too dug in to abandon Gingrich, what about the other Bible-thumpers he's attracted?
I'm no evangelical -- but I was a Catholic, and I know what Christianity teaches about God's forgiveness having the ability to wipe the slate clean. Yesterday, if you wanted to believe Gingrich was a godly man, you could tell yourself the slate was wiped clean. Today, not so much.
Also, "open marriage" is pretty '70s-sounding, no? It reeks of the post-'60s sexual revolution -- and you know how wingers feel about the '60s. If I were Romney's super Pac, I'd do an ad with wah-wah guitar music and Newt sporting a Harry Reems mustache. If the campaign bus is rockin', don't bother knockin'!
IF TEAM ROMNEY IS DOING THIS TO NEWT, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OBAMA? (And maybe to the country?)
Well, I have a few minutes here, and this is happening, so I'll just throw in my two cents (warning: links to Drudge and AP via Breitbart):
NEWT EX-WIFE UNLOADS ON CAMERA; NETWORK DEBATES 'ETHICS' OF AIRING BEFORE SC PRIMARY
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air! ...
UPDATE: The AP reports ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE.
Mitt Romney himself may be Thurston Howell III at times, but Team Romney is really good at this thug stuff. Team Romney (which I'm defining as the insiders and outsiders on Mitt's side) got this to happen at just the right time.
Team Romney is better at this than Team McCain. The GOP primaries this year are much uglier than the 2008 edition.
And as nasty as McCain and his surrogates were in the general election, mostly, after the Jeremiah Wright moment, it was McCarthyism and insinuations -- there was less digging up of actual dirt than you'd have expected.
With Gingrich, of course (and with Herman Cain before him), there was a lot to dig up, obviously. In a general election, things would be different. Right-wingers make crazy insinuations about Obama's college transcripts and birth certificate fakery; they talk of multiple Social Security numbers and drug-fueled gay liaisons. But in reality, there's no there there.
However, if there's anything anywhere, Team Romney's going to use it. Team Romney's not going to leave any ammunition unused. One thing that is sincere about Mitt Romney is that he has genuinely angry moments -- and I think this kind of campaigning really appeals to the angry side of him.
I don't think he's merely Poppy Bush, who sicced Lee Atwater on Michael Dukakis because he grew up the kind of preppy who played everything, including horseshoes, to win, but then governed with relative mildness by Republican standards (at least if you weren't a dictator overseas who looked at him crosswise).
I think Romney is a bit Nixonian -- he's got some of the same social awkwardness and some of the same anger. But he has the elite scion's desire to be (or at least seem) above the fray; he's not going to mire himself in the dirty work.
So he won't be Nixon if he wins, but he won't be Obama, either. If he gets that much power and you stand in his way, things might get ugly.
****
(And now I'll see you this evening or tomorrow....)
Well, I have a few minutes here, and this is happening, so I'll just throw in my two cents (warning: links to Drudge and AP via Breitbart):
NEWT EX-WIFE UNLOADS ON CAMERA; NETWORK DEBATES 'ETHICS' OF AIRING BEFORE SC PRIMARY
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air! ...
UPDATE: The AP reports ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE.
Mitt Romney himself may be Thurston Howell III at times, but Team Romney is really good at this thug stuff. Team Romney (which I'm defining as the insiders and outsiders on Mitt's side) got this to happen at just the right time.
Team Romney is better at this than Team McCain. The GOP primaries this year are much uglier than the 2008 edition.
And as nasty as McCain and his surrogates were in the general election, mostly, after the Jeremiah Wright moment, it was McCarthyism and insinuations -- there was less digging up of actual dirt than you'd have expected.
With Gingrich, of course (and with Herman Cain before him), there was a lot to dig up, obviously. In a general election, things would be different. Right-wingers make crazy insinuations about Obama's college transcripts and birth certificate fakery; they talk of multiple Social Security numbers and drug-fueled gay liaisons. But in reality, there's no there there.
However, if there's anything anywhere, Team Romney's going to use it. Team Romney's not going to leave any ammunition unused. One thing that is sincere about Mitt Romney is that he has genuinely angry moments -- and I think this kind of campaigning really appeals to the angry side of him.
I don't think he's merely Poppy Bush, who sicced Lee Atwater on Michael Dukakis because he grew up the kind of preppy who played everything, including horseshoes, to win, but then governed with relative mildness by Republican standards (at least if you weren't a dictator overseas who looked at him crosswise).
I think Romney is a bit Nixonian -- he's got some of the same social awkwardness and some of the same anger. But he has the elite scion's desire to be (or at least seem) above the fray; he's not going to mire himself in the dirty work.
So he won't be Nixon if he wins, but he won't be Obama, either. If he gets that much power and you stand in his way, things might get ugly.
****
(And now I'll see you this evening or tomorrow....)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
IS MITT ROMNEY MAKING AMERICA MORE CLASS-CONSCIOUS THAN OCCUPY WALL STREET DID?
Occupy Wall Street did an amazing job of getting America to start talking about economic inequality, and about the way the game is rigged for the rich and big corporations -- but after that first moment, when the movement still had everyone's attention, its members made a conscious decision not to get specific about positions and goals and critiques. I think a real opportunity was lost.
But now I feel that the Mitt Romney campaign has the potential to start a discussion about the specific ways the rich get richer, a discussion that will be heard even in the heartland, and even by low-information voters -- the very discussion Occupy didn't quite initiate.
Romney's doing this by being embarrassed about his wealth, and by releasing information about his financial situation in ways that draw attention to just what he's embarrassed about. He won't release his tax returns, then he says he will eventually, and meanwhile he blurts out that his tax rate is 15 percent, far less than the rate paid by many middle-class people. And now his reluctance to be more forthcoming, combined with what we know about his financial circumstances, leads a lot of people to speculate that he's offshoring his wealth. And on and on.
He's drawing attention to what the 1% can do with their money and the 99% can't. He's getting us down to cases on this.
And his shame is what's shining a light on this -- really, all he had to do was schedule the document dump for 5:30 on a Friday before a holiday weekend and only a few green-eyeshade journalists and bloggers would have really focused on what his disclosure revealed. Oh, sure, there'd be nuggets for opposition researchers to mine, but there wouldn't be this sense of shame. He could brazen his way through most attacks.
And now even his ideological soul mates are drawing attention to his shame. Chris Christie, who's endorsed him, says he should make his tax returns public. David Brooks is drawing attention to the shame by taking the opposite tack: he's being incredibly defensive on the candidate's behalf.
Some excerpts from Mr. Brooks' side in his new back and forth on the matter with Gail Collins:
But that's precisely the reason why Romney shouldn't be so ashamed -- and that's why his shame has the potential to make Americans focus on the way rich people operate in this society in a way no other financial disclosure has. Mitt may be making us class-conscious, at last. Maybe we ought to thank him.
Occupy Wall Street did an amazing job of getting America to start talking about economic inequality, and about the way the game is rigged for the rich and big corporations -- but after that first moment, when the movement still had everyone's attention, its members made a conscious decision not to get specific about positions and goals and critiques. I think a real opportunity was lost.
But now I feel that the Mitt Romney campaign has the potential to start a discussion about the specific ways the rich get richer, a discussion that will be heard even in the heartland, and even by low-information voters -- the very discussion Occupy didn't quite initiate.
Romney's doing this by being embarrassed about his wealth, and by releasing information about his financial situation in ways that draw attention to just what he's embarrassed about. He won't release his tax returns, then he says he will eventually, and meanwhile he blurts out that his tax rate is 15 percent, far less than the rate paid by many middle-class people. And now his reluctance to be more forthcoming, combined with what we know about his financial circumstances, leads a lot of people to speculate that he's offshoring his wealth. And on and on.
He's drawing attention to what the 1% can do with their money and the 99% can't. He's getting us down to cases on this.
And his shame is what's shining a light on this -- really, all he had to do was schedule the document dump for 5:30 on a Friday before a holiday weekend and only a few green-eyeshade journalists and bloggers would have really focused on what his disclosure revealed. Oh, sure, there'd be nuggets for opposition researchers to mine, but there wouldn't be this sense of shame. He could brazen his way through most attacks.
And now even his ideological soul mates are drawing attention to his shame. Chris Christie, who's endorsed him, says he should make his tax returns public. David Brooks is drawing attention to the shame by taking the opposite tack: he's being incredibly defensive on the candidate's behalf.
Some excerpts from Mr. Brooks' side in his new back and forth on the matter with Gail Collins:
David: ... Why do we make candidates release their tax forms? Has there ever been a case where a presidential decision has been influenced by some bit of information that might appear on a tax form? I doubt it. Has information on a tax form ever influenced anybody’s vote? Never heard of such a case....I actually think Brooks has a point at the beginning of this -- I can't think of a financial disclosure that actually affected the outcome of an election. We're just not a class-conscious society.
David: My own view is that the desire for full disclosure stems from a few things. First, pure prurience. Second, members of what used to be called the New Class perpetually labor under the delusion that other people dislike the rich as much as they do and if they can only disclose that someone is rich that will end their political chances. Third, there is a misbegotten ideology haunting the land, the ideology of sunshinism. This is the belief that everything should be made public....
David: It also destroys people’s faith in government. Have you noticed that as democracy has become more open, cynicism has skyrocketed and the effectiveness of government has gone down the toilet? Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has the best observation on this — that parts of government should be hidden for the same reason middle-aged people should wear clothes.
Indeed, because those millions in Super-PAC bucks are just so open and transparent.
But that's precisely the reason why Romney shouldn't be so ashamed -- and that's why his shame has the potential to make Americans focus on the way rich people operate in this society in a way no other financial disclosure has. Mitt may be making us class-conscious, at last. Maybe we ought to thank him.
BETTER TO TRAVEL ANGRILY THAN TO ARRIVE
I know that Mitt Romney looks like a weak candidate right now, but he's still awfully close to Obama even in that new Public Policy Polling survey, and I think even people who see him as hopeless and pathetic will agree that he's the most electable candidate the Republicans have. (No, I'm not counting Ron Paul because I think the vast majority of Americans don't know how many government programs he'd like to eliminate and what was written in his newsletters.) My point is that if the Republicans want to win, you'd think they'd be circling the wagons around him, maximizing his strengths, working to downplay his weaknesses, and attacking his critics. (And, while they're at it, putting a stop to the endless series of debates.)
But they're not doing any of this. Sarah Palin, as you probably know, wants the GOP fight to continue:
"I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron, steel sharpens steel," Ms. Palin said.... "These guys are getting better in their debates, they're getting more concise, they're getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are to get the country back on the right track and get Americans working again."
Rupert Murdoch publicly vented his frustration with Romney in a tweet after Monday's debate:
@rupertmurdoch: When will Romney get a manager to prepare him? Fancy not being ready for questions about taxes or felons! Damaging.
That's mild -- but should the de facto head of the GOP's media office say such things out loud?
And the rubes may be responding:
It's one poll from a short time period, but a new Rasmussen national survey shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich making a big move in the Republican primary race compared to his latest performances in public polls. The new Ras, a snap poll conducted Tuesday, shows Gingrich just three points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who leads the sample with 30 percent.
The one major change in the race was Gingrich’s impressive performance in Monday night's debate in South Carolina....
A couple of things are going on. One is that Republicans really do believe their own BS: Rush Limbaugh says on a regular basis that it's hardcore conservatism that wins elections, and I guess a lot of Republicans actually believe it. They fear Romney can't win because he's not wingnutty enough. (Maybe they think the public would prefer Gingrich, notwithstanding the 60% unfavorable rating he has in that PPP poll.)
Another factor, I think, is that Republicans simply enjoy conflict. We've seen this from the new teabaggers in the House this past year: Democrats have tried to compromise with them, but they don't seem to want to take yes for an answer. Part of this is ideological purism, obviously, but I think to some extent they just like fighting.
This is almost a powdered-drug way of thinking: It's as if the Republicans like the rush so much (Newt just said "food stamps" again! Booyah!) that they don't care if the end result in November is a nasty crash.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
I know that Mitt Romney looks like a weak candidate right now, but he's still awfully close to Obama even in that new Public Policy Polling survey, and I think even people who see him as hopeless and pathetic will agree that he's the most electable candidate the Republicans have. (No, I'm not counting Ron Paul because I think the vast majority of Americans don't know how many government programs he'd like to eliminate and what was written in his newsletters.) My point is that if the Republicans want to win, you'd think they'd be circling the wagons around him, maximizing his strengths, working to downplay his weaknesses, and attacking his critics. (And, while they're at it, putting a stop to the endless series of debates.)
But they're not doing any of this. Sarah Palin, as you probably know, wants the GOP fight to continue:
"I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron, steel sharpens steel," Ms. Palin said.... "These guys are getting better in their debates, they're getting more concise, they're getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are to get the country back on the right track and get Americans working again."
Rupert Murdoch publicly vented his frustration with Romney in a tweet after Monday's debate:
@rupertmurdoch: When will Romney get a manager to prepare him? Fancy not being ready for questions about taxes or felons! Damaging.
That's mild -- but should the de facto head of the GOP's media office say such things out loud?
And the rubes may be responding:
It's one poll from a short time period, but a new Rasmussen national survey shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich making a big move in the Republican primary race compared to his latest performances in public polls. The new Ras, a snap poll conducted Tuesday, shows Gingrich just three points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who leads the sample with 30 percent.
The one major change in the race was Gingrich’s impressive performance in Monday night's debate in South Carolina....
A couple of things are going on. One is that Republicans really do believe their own BS: Rush Limbaugh says on a regular basis that it's hardcore conservatism that wins elections, and I guess a lot of Republicans actually believe it. They fear Romney can't win because he's not wingnutty enough. (Maybe they think the public would prefer Gingrich, notwithstanding the 60% unfavorable rating he has in that PPP poll.)
Another factor, I think, is that Republicans simply enjoy conflict. We've seen this from the new teabaggers in the House this past year: Democrats have tried to compromise with them, but they don't seem to want to take yes for an answer. Part of this is ideological purism, obviously, but I think to some extent they just like fighting.
This is almost a powdered-drug way of thinking: It's as if the Republicans like the rush so much (Newt just said "food stamps" again! Booyah!) that they don't care if the end result in November is a nasty crash.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)