. . . then you’re in trouble. Because just when you wingnuts think it’s safe to warm to Mitt Romney — and we men of the Left are not as impressed as you seem to be by his less-than-50-percent win in Florida; the not-Romneys are still beating him, but at least he got over 30 percent! — he goes and opens his mouth, and out comes his patrician “not concerned about the very poor” remark.
I bet he’s not! After all, if you and a few buddies with names like T. Coleman Andrews III made pots of dough by starting up a venture-capital firm with other people’s moolah and then spent the rest of your life living off the “carried interest” proceeds at a low, low, low tax rate of 15 percent, upgrading your $12 million vacation home in the ritzy San Diego suburb of La Jolla and running for president because you can’t get elected to any other office, you wouldn’t be either.
Okay, so maybe he didn’t mean it quite the way we’re going to use it against him in the fall campaign if you folks insist on nominating this year’s version of John McCain minus the war record. But the anti-Empath still hasn’t figured out that you can’t hand us brass-knuckle sound bites and then expect us not to use them. It’s as if the software upgrade (Mean Mitt v. 1.2) didn’t quite get all the bugs worked out in the campaign’s haste to get tough with SpongeBob SquarePants. Gotta fine-tune this Stepford-candidate thing, especially if you’re going to run him against our never-ever-to-be-vetted Manchurian candidate.
Come on guys, you’ve got to make it a little harder for us than this. Gaia knows we like a sure thing as much as the next criminal organization masquerading as a political party, but even we need a real fight every now and then, just to keep us sharp. And from the looks of things, you’re bound and determined not to give us one — which is one of the reasons we keep inviting your “GOP Establishment” to our Manhattan and Georgetown cocktail parties. Who doesn’t love a lovable loser?
Hey, Speaker Boehner, have another beer! Just don’t cry into it.
Sure the polls show that everybody hates Barry, that he’s fading in the swing states, and that only somebody who gets to host a show on MSNBC that nobody but me watches still believes in the myth of the Emperor Hussein’s golden-throated invincibility. But this one thing I know is true: Say what you will about BHO II, but when the Party of Take becomes bigger than the Party of Give, it’s game over for you suckers.
So go ahead and nominate Mitt — please! Nominate the guy who “likes to fire people” and “isn’t worried” about the very poor. Nominate the guy who will stammer and stutter in the debates against BO2, who won’t have a good answer for any question involving his money and — like almost every Republican — will be unable and unwilling to defend himself when the blows start raining down, and he’s trapped in his corner, and even though his team has thrown in the towel the media — oops! I mean the ref! — won’t notice because, after all, he’s on our payroll.
In the Fight of the Century between the Apologetic Oligarch and the Tribune of the Folks, who do you think the fans will be rooting for? Time to call my bookie.
All politicians make these kind of gaffes. Republican politicians' gaffes are scrutinized unfairly.
Gingrich can persuasively and personally defend himself when given the chance. Romney cannot, and every single innocuous misstep of his becomes a media meme, reveled in for a week. This is reason enough to make Gingrich the standard bearer of the party.
I'm not saying Gingrich doesn't see his gaffes turned into memes: that's the way the media and the internet work; without silly trivial diversions there would be nothing to prattle on about every second of every day.
I'm saying that actually listening to Gingrich explain the "gaffe" and the origins of the gaffe, you walk away thinking, "Okay, I can buy that." Whereas Romney deploys surrogates (or God help us, himself) to throw gas on the fire.
The only difference so between Romney and Gingrich is exposure. Eloquence and an ability to explain are irrelevant at a 65:1 exposure disadvantage (which yielded only a 4.6:3.2 margin of victory). Once nominated, the speaker will not have that disadvantage.
Please. Please don't nominate our version of John Kerry. Gingrich isn't the most obvious or ideal alternative, but right now he is the only alternative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKing,
That's the thing. Newt isn't Bill Clinton. If you are predisposed to like Newt, you are right. But if you are not, it all sounds like a bunch of baloney.
And the problem with Newt and his baloney slick excuses for "right wing social engineering" and "lunar colony" and "janitors" etc. is that he makes so many of them, so frequently, that the whole "fool me once, fool me twice" maxim goes into effect.
Newt is simply not attractice to non-Republicans.
And the fact that left his wife to mary a trophy staffer who was much younger (and that this was the 2nd time he did it) is a big emotional turn-off to women, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the reply, CenterRightMargin.
I am not "predisposed to like Newt" in the slightest. I find him a lacking in energy due to his age, and he is an undisciplined candidate.
But as you can see with Romney, discipline only takes you so far.
Look, conservatism is the complicated case. It isn't easy explaining why we don't hate poor people to the great middle who aren't already "predisposed" to the argument. It is doubly important we put forward a man who can make the case on principle. Santorum is not bad in this regard, Gingrich is best, and Romney is a fickle disaster.
Further, National Review, and all of conservative media have to get their heads on straight about something: amateur punditry. All commentary about "electability" should be left to people who do this for a living. We Are All Pundits Now. We are about to nominate a man not because of our agreement or disagreement of his direct appeal to us, but rather because of how we think others will view him. This is the death of the republic.
When comment-section urchins are speculating about the effect of absentee ballots or how the Florida Panhandle will vote or how a gaffe will move someone's poll numbers, we have slipped the bounds of candidate analysis to meta-analysis. Meta-elections produce men like John Kerry and Mitt Romney: politicians whose chief qualities are superficial. They "look" presidential and are bereft of all substance. People can't explain this other than calling them "robotic." It isn't a simple falseness, it is a mode of campaigning. Their candidacy isn't about a platform of ideas or leadership, their candidacy is about their candidacy, and fill in the substance later.
I hope someone on staff is reading this. Take a step back and survey this absurd process. Please bring it to the attention of conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm saying that actually listening to Gingrich explain the "gaffe" and the origins of the gaffe, you walk away thinking, "Okay, I can buy that."
You have got to be kidding. In other words, Center Right is right. To me Gingrich is a meaningless word-generator. He will say anything. He already has said anything.
Maybe this is a forlorn hope, maybe it's not -- but Santorum, who is also imperfect but not beyond redemption like the other two, needs to home in on small government and stay there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Hone in on small government"? Quite a truckload of honing to do by a candidate who is predisposed to banning contraceptives and uses "rape" and "Gift from God" in the same sentence. Trying to sell State-centric family planning to female independents while claiming to be the small government candidate is sure to work. For Barack Hussein Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLame. In fact, the whole shtick is moving into the creepy zone. This is why everyone needs a boss. You came up with the alter-ego idea and thought it was a hoot. "I'll be what I imagine a crazy liberal sounds like when no one is a around!" What you needed is a boss to tell you it is funny once, maybe twice. After that it starts to make everyone uncomfortable and you need to stop it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought it was funny.
I don't necessarily agree that 'everyone' needs a boss (WFB, Frank Sinatra come to mind), but it would be hard to argue against having a sense of humor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing that I've noticed about Romney supporters. None of them have a sense of humor.
I guess spending all your time explaining what the boss really meant, doesn't leave one much time or energy for the nicer things of life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must have missed that remarkable sense of humor of the Newt, Santo and Ron Paul supporters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDullards like MarkW are fond of projection. They spend all day at lemon parties whining about RINO's, then try to pretend hackneyed nonsense like this Kahane gag is a hoot because it confirms their twisted bias.
Romney is what he is and that's better than the alternatives, including Obama. The Nancy boys here at NRO need to stop panicking every time the left says something mean about Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a Romney supporter.
The Kahane shtick is not funny.
Other than that, great post!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're surprised? Liberals rarely possess the ability to laugh at themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLighten up, Francis. This is exactly the type of comment that the stereotype of a conservative (i.e. the republican establishment) would make.
It's funny because it has an element of truth. Before the weekend is over, His Serene Majesty Barack Hussein Obama will utter the words, "Some don't care about the very poor. Others want them to work as school janitors. That's not an America that's built to last." (Keep in mind, he is also the head of the United Auto Workers Union, so the "built to last" thing is a subliminal message to you to go out and buy a Dodge Truck.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely. This attempt at snark is just an embarrassment - although the tripe that Walsh pens under is own name isn't much better. No idea how this guy gets paid to write this pap. I'd be willing to pay NRO to keep his mind-numbed garbage off the site.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, there is a reason Michael Walsh/David Kahane has exactly one screen writing credit to his name, although he probably thinks its because all those nasty Hollywood libruls discriminate against Conservatives, rather his obvious lack of talent. If I were a Conservative, I would be embarrassed to be associated with this hack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. Originally, I thought the point of the Kahane schtick was to make people laugh through a parody of absurdist liberal thinking. Here, though, "Kahane" is actually making perfectly reasonable points ("you can’t hand us brass-knuckle sound bites and then expect us not to use them"), albeit with a few rhetorical flourishes dropped in here and there. It's as though Walsh forgot what the purpose of the character was supposed to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree, it is creepy. A weird, twisted method of re-affirming one's biases, I guess. Step outside of the fact-free bubble, and you get this: In running for re-election, Obama will be able to say he delivered on four core objectives: restoring economic growth in one year after inheriting the worst recession since the 1930s; ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; delivering universal healthcare; and saving the now buoyant American auto sector.
And Romney wants to run against Obama's record. Go for it, Mitt.*
Now, let's see you bubble denizens contest those fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse* Dish
I got it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDitto that, Bill. Kahane would prefer that we lob up Newt, the biggest possible softball gift to the Dems (heck, they ALREADY took him out in the '90s and they didn't even have to use his marriages/divorces/marriages/divorces/fooling around and Fannie/Freddie/K-Street stuff.....) or Rick "I used to be a Senator" Santorum, who couldn't even hold his office in his home state and has no campaign. So silly, snarky stuff like this is all he can come up with since his "boys" have lost as everybody but him has realized they would lose to Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Walsh's point about John McCain is pretty hilarious. Only 4 years ago, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh were endorsing Romney as the Conservative alternative to McCain, now all of a sudden Mitt is a RINO. Look, Romney is not perfect but this animus against him is starting to grate. Mr. Walsh can't seriously tell me he'd prefer Newt, who is seriously unpopular and swings to the left when thinks it will help him. Unless he's supporting Santorum, who I do think is also a viable candidate though less so than Romney. If you're going to tear down Romney, please at least put forward a credible alternative, the field has been winnowed down enough that this is no longer an unreasonable request.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse