Republican White House Candidates: Synchronized Swimming
Which one of these “leaders” actually thinks he can handle a leadership position? Now is the time for these candidates to tell voters what they believe in, where they stand, what they’ll do. Instead we get a ballet troupe dancing delicately in unison, frantically trying not to step on any land mines (i.e. stray from their script or possibly offend somebody). Pathetic.
Ready, all together now: “The war in Iraq has been terribly mismanaged, but U.S. troops should not be withdrawn.” “Whew! Did we get it right?” They memorized their lines competently. Maybe they're qualified to be extras in a movie, but President of the United States??
There was a scene from Monty Python's “Life of Brian” where Brian/Jesus was talking to a crowd of his devotees. He called out to them “you are all individuals.” And they responded in unison: “Yes, we are all individuals.”
These candidates are in a tough position. If they stay loyal to President Failure, they’ll alienate 70 plus percent of the voters. If they try to distance themselves from the sinking ship, they’ll piss off that coalition of robber barons and Salem Witch-hunters who control the Republican Party.
What to do? Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But they can't keep up this synchronized swimming charade forever.
Labels: Life of Brian, Republican tightrope, synchronized swimming
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:17 AM
27 Comments:
What a bunch of stiffs. I feel a lot better about the next election after watching the Republican debate.
They probably think now is too early to go hard after Bush's incompetencies. To do so would completely lame duck his remaining time (were already closing in). The rhetoric will step up eventually. It has too...
I couldn't bring myself to watch the GOP candidates the other night. This morning I read an online Newsweek article about Dubya's approval rating sinking to 28%, one pt. lower than Daddy Bush's. Also in the article: the GOP candidates mentioned Dubya's name ONCE during the debate. Isn't that stunning? Once. The sitting presiding of their own party. And these asswipes won't vote to override his veto, for fear, as you say, of alienating the other asswipes who run the party. I wonder if any of them will break away from the pack. Nah, that would take personal integrity.
J. Marquis: Yup, so far none of those clones look very threatening.
Political Realm: At some point they'll have to break out of the womb and become individuals. There's too much disagreement within the Republican Party and they'll have to deal with it.
Candace: I didn't watch either. Life's too short to be bored shitless like that. But they've always had to do that delicate dance with abortion, giving some long amorphous meaningless answer that won't offend conservative Yuppies or the snakehandlers. And how they're having to do the same thing with Iraq. At some point somebody will have to stick their neck out and actually say something.
The Republican's know they have a very weak line up.
Fred Thompson, their actor/their wanna be Ronald Reagan so very much, is just about the only hope they have right now.
Let's Talk: I think you're right, Thompson might be their only hope. He has a strong image and personality. Since their platform doesn't have any substance, they need somebody with style and personality to capture the votes. Thompson could be the new Reagan.
I watched it because, you know, "know your enemy". It was pathetic. It seemed to me each of the repug candidates were trying to signal to the Christian Right that they were of faith. Too bad Matthews didn't ask any real questions. They all pray, they all support the war, they all bought the Ronnie bullshit mythology and they were all stumbling over themselves to be deciders for American women on abortion. Geez and the gays better watch out, too! What a bunch of losers.
Kitchen Window Woman: Yup, they're pretty sad. They have too many delicate balancing acts; they can't possible keep them all up. They have to genuflect toward Reagan in every sentence. They have to pander to lots of middle and upper class voters who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and they have to do this without alienating the Biblethumpers. They have to admit that Iraq was "mishandled," "mistakes were made," but at the same time it would be wrong to pull out; we have to stay there and achieve "victory." If they get too close to Bush he'll pull them down, and if they get too far away they'll alienate their heaviest donors.
That's too much balancing. They're gonna start falling off the tightrope one by one.
Kitchen Window Woman, I don't think we should expect from Chris Matthews. Earlier on Tuesday he asked a Guiliani adviser who would win in a street fight in Queens, Giuliani or Ahmadinajad. Even the Giuliani guy seemed stunned at the question, before getting back on track and saying Giuliani would win that fight. Good to know.
People In The Sun: A streetfight between Giuliani and Ahmadinejad, LOL. Coming soon to HBO.
What to do? Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But they can't keep up this synchronized swimming charade forever.
I don't know. I love to see them tread water for a bit longer. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
The real story is the Republican establishment and media are not showing the MSNBC poll data that Ron Paul (not the "top 3") is getting the most positive ratings! He is not a neocon sycophant and is directly challenging the "powers that be".
http://westvirginiaholler.blogspot.com/
Kvatch: Yeah, it would be fun to watch them flail around a little longer, frantically trying not to fall off the tightrope.
BlueRidgeWV: I think Ron Paul would be great. I'd have to sacrifice a lot of my liberal ideas, but having a Libertarian in charge might be the only way out of this totalitarian mess we're in.
It's pretty funny to watch a really unpopular party try to distance themselves from their very own politics. It's funny because no one believes the charade and can see right through it.
But it's not like the Democrats are any better. Their dance is one of trying to relate the mass sentiment against their opposing party but at the same time reassuring the leaders of US capitalism that they don't really give a shit about ending the war, helping workers etc. but want to suck up to big business.
Even funnier, is that the same thing is happening in Australia.
Benjamin: That's true, there isn't much difference between the 2 parties. I usually vote Democratic as the lesser of 2 evils, but both parties are owned lock stock and barrel by Big Business. Each party has different soundbites so they can pander to different groups, but their true loyalties and motivations are pretty similar.
Politicians are the same everywhere, I'm sure. American voters are too easily swayed by images and slogans; I've always figured voters in other countries are more practical and less easily swayed.
Yeah I think the Gubers got handed out the same talking points, man the
DC spin merchants must be getting lazy these days.
Damien: Yup, same talking points for everybody. One size fits all.
Well Tom
If they had any balls they'd tell the fucking truth.
I mean, there is some merit to the conservative position: Small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, State's Rights...
But what Republicans FAIL to do is stand up and admit that George W Bush has taken then way far off course of the "Republican" Ideal.
Instead they try to co-opt NeoCon BushCo ideals into their platform.
Reality is Republicans have a hard time with The Truth.
It they could just tell the truth they could perhaps actually make some headway.
PoliShifter: Balls, there's a concept (for both parties). Yeah, if conservatives only still believed in their old slogans about local autonomy, lower taxes, individual freedom, limited government.
I don't agree completely with the limited government/Conservative mindset, since I'm in favor of a social safety net and protecting the environment. But a Libertarian/Conservative government would still be a welcome change, in spite of its faults. Anything to get us off this totalitarian slope we're slipping down.
I have to admit that I like Ron Paul too. I don't agree with him on a number of issues, but like you suggest, Tom, he isn't anywhere very near a totalitarian/blind-GOP-loyalty mindset. Being basically a member of a third party, I think he would piss off too many people both left and right to be successful at a level much higher than he is at now (U.S. Rep.) I still find him to be a breath of fresh air, though. Though he stands in a pile of trash, he does tend to shine, and he show that he and his ideas have some value. He is about the only one in that GOP field for whom I would consider voting. If it was Ron Paul versus Hillary Clinton, I would have to do some very careful thinking before I voted.
Snave: Yeah, I could live with having Ron Paul for president. There are issues where I disagree, but this isn't a perfect world. There might be enough conservatives out there who actually believe in their own slogans about "less government." Between them and the rest of us who just want to get away from the neocons, maybe he'll have a chance. If nothing else, he might push a lot of issues to the forefront that the rest of the Republicans would like to ignore.
it would have been more interesting if they had worn bathing caps and those funny things on their noses, though.
Mike: Yup, bathing caps for each one of them, that would make it complete.
Synchronized swimming... heh... it always makes me think of the Harry Shearer-Martin Short SNL skit where Short says "I'm not a strong swimmer!"
Snave: I guess I missed that SNL skit. I didn't watch the show much during that period with Martin Short. I used to watch it earlier, and then I started watching it again when it was Dana Carvey and Mike Meyers, etc.
ask and ye shall receive, Tom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WxCEkhGbfM
It's the short version.
Note the great Chris Guest.
Mike: LOL. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home