On The Nature Of Silliness

« October 2012 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2
6
7
13
14
16
20
21
22
23
26
28

Memo to Mitt Romney: YEAH, TAKE THAT HIGH ROAD.

Two debates under our belts, one to go, a few weeks until the election. How much more Romney can any of us take? How much more Romney are we going to have to take? Ann's promised that if Mitt loses, he's never running again, so if that isn't motivation to get out and vote, I don't know what is. Mondays With Mitt starts right after the non-existent theme song. If this bothers you, stop reading and hum for a few minutes.

“I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." - Mitt Romney's big unforced error during the second debate.

Keep in mind, as the right-wing media attempts to argue that semantically, the phrase "acts of terror" is not the phrase "acts of terror", that the subtext of this is the same that it's always been. No Democrat can ever respond correctly to overseas violence because, no matter how many "suspected militants" they kill with robot planes, all Democrats are weak on foreign policy because they are Democrats.

Even if Obama had parroted the ideal right-wing response to any attack by brown people on Americans - growl a lot, wave the flag, and invade at least two neighboring countries before the first press conference was over - he wouldn't have been given credit for it. Something would have been wrong. Probably that he would have just been doing it to get re-elected. That they had to manufacture some weaksauce "what did he call it and when" controversy out of the Benghazi response just shows how fucked in the head they are.

"The very fact that the president has to utter a term like that just is a glaring example of how small the campaign is. The Obama campaign has not been one about the future. It hasn't been talking about what they'd do over the next four years to really help rebuild the economy. Instead, they have reduced themselves to very small attacks like 'Romnesia,' which is really quite frankly silly for the president of the United States, as the leader of the free world, to begin uttering." - Romney spokesman Kevin Madden, who could have just whined "Cut it out!" and had the same effect.

Let's touch for just one second on the ridiculousness of anyone, in any campaign, thinking that a semi-pithy campaign dig based on your opponent's name is somehow beneath the office of the presidency. Especially in this day and age, where 36% of all political speech is just taking part of a candidate or party's name and turning it into something else to varying degrees of success. Try and go three posts in any comments thread without seeing "Lieberal" or "Rethuglican" or "Obamination".

But for Romney it's especially hilarious, because just three weeks ago, in this very space, I mocked Mittens' (see, even I can't keep from doing it) desperate, failed attempt to coin the term "Obamaloney" back in August. If "Romnesia" is silly and unbecoming, then "Obamaloney" should be a FUCKING INSTANT DISQUALIFICATION FOR BEING GOD-AWFUL.

"The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can't change Washington from inside. He can only change it from outside. Well, we're giving him that chance in November. He's going outside! I can change Washington, I will change Washington. We'll get the job from the inside. Republicans and Democrats will come together." - Mitt Romney, telling a higher percentage of the truth than usual.

This will likely happen if Romney wins, but it's not because Romney is an awesome guy. We all know Mitt Romney is not an awesome guy. The reason Obama couldn't get Republicans to stop obstructing progress is that Republicans know they can get away with obstructing progress.

Democrats, however, know in their hearts that they can't get away with constant obstruction, whether they actually can or not. Plus, Democratic lawmakers, being mostly rich, powerful assholes, benefit personally from the Republican agenda, so even if they disagree with it on principle, it's easier for them to cooperate.

Of course, Obama and Romney are operating from the same, all too common fallacy - that good things only happen when Democrats and Republicans work together. But there's no way this election's going to kill THAT myth.