Given that I sat through the Republican convention this week I feel somewhat obligated to watch as much of the Democratic party’s party as I can stomach. It was not always like this for me. Once upon a time I glued myself to the Dem convention, and dismissed the GOPS out of hand. They were dinosaurs and I’d contemptuously snicker about their retrograde ways with friends while ignoring their convention. Odd how things change.
In fairness, I shall try to get through as much of the DNC as possible. Though I find the Democratic party increasingly absurd – and not in a compelling, fun way like a Buñuel film or an episode of Green Acres. Obama era Democrats are like civil war reenactors. They seem to be stuck in circa 1977 Saul Alinsky amber. But the activity is the same as civil war reenactors:
Pretend a long over crisis is still happening, pretend to be waging battle to save us from pretend crisis, stomp around like champions of justice after declaring victory over evil force that is largely dissipated or nonexistent.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a crazed, 5th rate William Tecumseh Sherman marching to a sea only she sees, Joe Biden is U. S. Grant – but later when he was drunk all the time – while Antonio Villaraigosa degrades himself as a Union messenger boy, no doubt confident that the big wigs will anoint him guv’nor of Califournee because of his tireless service to the pretend cause. Not sure who Sandra Fluke is but, by golly, she’s busy and important!
The adult in the room has decamped to Asia. Which ought to tell you all you need to know.
Here’s how the DNC will go: The last Kennedy standing will be a Kennedy in public. People will be moved by a feeling that is adjacent to nostalgia but in realty can’t be. This will feel like the not entirely unpleasant tingling of too much Gold Bond Powder in ones’ jockstrap. A lot of other people will tell us how sublimely wonderful Obama is and how amazing the last 4 years have been. The majority of the media will concur. Rachel Maddow won’t lunge at the camera for 3 solid days – a record. Speakers will do an end run around Hope and Change disappointment by blaming others and talking about how hard real change is. (We still won’t be told what “change” means though.) Everything – from high unemployment to the season one finale of The Killing - will be blamed on George W Bush. A few select women no one much likes will tell the large majority of women that Mitt Romney wants to sew up their vaginas. And just when the entire thing is about to bore everyone to tears Bill Clinton will steal the show and give many pause. In that pause we shall either hear the muses beckoning “Vote for Obama again. He’s a wonderful President. You like him, you really like him.” OR ”Holy shit, Obama blows next to this guy. Why can’t he be President again?”
Then Biden will speak - seriously. The media will deem his serious speech an absolute, irrevocable recovery from the idiocy of his vice presidency so far. Finally, Obama will ride in on a cascade of rose pedals and angels breaking wind, stoop down to accept the nomination and make a speech we’ve now heard three thousand four hundred and thirty-seven times. BUT there will be one thing in it we have not heard. For the media this ONE THING – whatever it is – will be the game changer!!! and the reason he will surely win.
Then the DNC will be over.
I’ll watch…mostly to see if I’m right.
The adult in the room has decamped to Asia. Which ought to tell you all you need to know
lol true, she’s not even staying the same hemisphere!
It’s pretend because they absolutely will not fight for anything but thier jobs…they haven’t fought for years. The party fought the Clintons harder than they have any Repug for a long time. I use to say that Bush 2 got more help from DC Dems every two weeks than Bill got in all of his 8 years. It’s the truth
The question before the elite about who to install is this : Who will get us the money faster? Here to fore it was Barry, by just collapsing and handing it over. But when Mittens put Ryan on the ticket, then it became interesting. Because now Mittens has positioned himself as someone who will go after the ill gotten gains for the elite…he can make the argument his team will steal the loot for them faster…Barry is in trouble .
My god, John, you’re WICKED funny! Thanks for the laugh.
Exactly right, Paper Doll.
Romney was already one of them but he’s a Boomer, and although he’s a psycho perfectly at ease with peasants eating pussycat pie for dinner, he also needs to be liked and that makes him flip-floppy because Boomers are passive about likability. Enter Paul Ryan, the next generation. He’s a liar without empathy and needs to be liked but he’s aggressive about it, not passive. He deserves it. So the old guy will go along with what the young guy pushes, making deals for the investor class and yanking rugs out from beneath the worker class, it’s what he does best anyway, and now he has the back-up he needs.
The elite have found their new man, and this is so great because it’s two men, two generations, for the price of one. List left, list right, list left, list right — keep the people busy rushing from one side to the next and they won’t have time to deal with the fact that you’re sinking their boat. You’re right – Barry’s in trouble. Oh well, easy come easy go. If they kick Barack Obama to the curb I’ll enjoy a glass of schadenfreude watching him taste the bitter pill he so gleefully shoved down the throats of so many before. Imagine Michelle’s fury. A one term President going out in failure doesn’t make anywhere near the fees, or get the respect, Bill Clinton pulls in. You know, this is a sweet schadenfreude. Go ahead pour me another glass.
But, meanwhile, we’re screwed. Utterly and inextricably. I’m not surprised Obama did what he did, or that Romney and Ryan are, or that the elites choose as they do. It benefits them. It’s lousy low down psychopathically destructive, but it benefits them, they get a lot of stuff in the bargain. The part that really makes me shake my head is everybody else. The millions of Americans who not only go along with this but actually put effort into fueling it. Bushies. Obamabots. Romneyites. I’ve wondered my whole life what it is about human nature that compels ordinary people to be taken in and defend something that will hurt them.
Well said.
Exactly, Zal, and very nicely put. BTW, you’re one of my favorite posters.
What Senneth said!
John, could you perhaps make a checklist of the absurd events that will transpire at the Dems’ wingding so that we can print it out and make a game of it — like one of those road trip games where you slide a tinted plastic window over the icon of a cow when you spot one?
This post made me guffaw aloud — unfortunate, since it’s 4AM and I may have woken the neighbors.
Bullet point suggestions:
*RACHEL MADDOW IS RENDERED ‘SPEECHLESS’ BY A SPEECH
*A BLACK PERSON IS SHOWN NODDING WITH AT LEAST ONE HAND IN THE AIR
*A WOMAN IS SHOWN CRYING
*OBAMA LITERALLY LOOKS DOWN HIS NOSE AT THE AUDIENCE AFTER ASSERTING AN ACCOMPLISHMENT
*OBAMA MENTIONS GOD
*GOD MENTIONS OBAMA
*AN ATTENDEE IS SHOWN WEARING A SHIRT WITH THE IMAGE OF A CHAIR ON IT
brilliant!
Don’t forget the inevitable “surprise” by Betty White in answer to Clint.
Love it John and Jay…In a perfect world, Clinton will introduce Obama, who will step to the podium and announce that he is resigning and throwing his support to Hillary. She will then parachute in like a rock star to thunderous applause say thank you, and save the country.
Chrissie will commit hari kari on live t.v. Rachael will have a public orgasm, and the convention will go out to the tune of “Happy Days are here Again.”
“Rachael will have a public orgasm”
How will we distinguish it? Please advise….
Excellent post, John. You’re right on the money with the Civil War reenactment. I wonder if Biden or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will remind us that if Romney wins, “they gonna put y’all back in chains” to make that comparison more obvious.
As much as I indulge myself in the fantasy that Clinton is going to deliver a speech that is chock full of double entendres, I think the reality is going to be that it will be a well tempered and carefully written speech that argues more on behalf of his party than Obama. I also fully expect the Progressive Dems and the MSM to find any number of offensive remarks in his speech because as you’ve pointed out, Obama is going to look like a rank amateur when he takes the stage.
The Republicans are going to stage a Counter-Convention in Charlotte at the same time, which the Democrats weren’t able to do in Tampa because of hurricane Isaac. I wonder if they’re going to point out that the “Forward” slogan is actually pointing back to the 1990′s, which would easily take the wind out of the sails of the ObamaKamp’s claim that Romney’s vision is looking to the past while theirs is not.
Unfortunately, I think you are right about President Clinton’s speech. He is a loyal Democrat and will be tying to re-set the tone for 2016. I can’t think he is happy about what President Obama has done to the party, or that he would shed any tears if President Obama does not win re-election. But he is looking to a longer horizon and he will not give the party any ammunition.
djmm
Good points on the anticipated WJC speech, djmm and Anthony. I’m going to respectfully disagree, however. I think WJC will mostly talk about why Clintonomics and the Clinton Dems were so great; it’ll be an implied (not an express) criticism of Obama, in other words. There’ll be sufficient praise for O of course (part of creating the plausible deniablility he’ll need); but his implied message will be clear to the bitter-clingers who reside in OH and PA. Lastly, he has to know that a second O term is likely to create Dem-fatigue in the country, which doesn’t bode well for a possible run by Hillary in 2016. (Personally, I think Hillary is unlikely to run in ’16, but it’s undeniable that WJC desperately wants her to.)
The great thing about this issue is it’ll be resolved soon, when WJC speaks on Wed. — one or the other of our views will prevail and it’ll be obvious to us.
“The Republicans are going to stage a Counter-Convention in Charlotte at the same time, ….”
Really? I really dislike that — it’s declasse to step on the other guy’s convention. I’m all for going back to tradition of keeping a low profile during the opponent’s show.
I think Sandra Fluke is Molly Pitcher. That was the Revolution. But Fluke has the same haircut as Ken Burns, so I’m not certain.
Well – except that “Molly Pitcher” (Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley) followed her husband’s camp during the American Revolution, washed, cleaned, and cooked for the soldiers, brought them water, and actually took her husband’s place at his cannon, earning her a battlefield commission as a sergeant.
Comparing Fluke to her is like comparing George Clooney to Dr. Michael DeBakey.
How about she plays Lucretia Coffin Mott?
Spot on. And too funny. Especially the roses and farting angels. Shades of Kurt Vonnegut, except you left out the tap dancing.
spot on, John…you nailed it…when watching the DNC, best to keep the mute button close by for our sanity as they try to makes us believe the unbelievable…
btw…two articles today commenting on O’s arrogance and disloyalty that even Dems take offense too…one by Jodi Kantor in NYT and another by Al Hunt…(contradicts that ‘likeability’ factor the media keeps pushing)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html?hp
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/al-hunt-obama-persona/2012/09/03/id/450637
Attention those who enjoyed imust’s blog: the blogger is back to posting (after a post-GOP-primaries recess). Here’s the link: http://pie2012.wordpress.com/
John – thank you for watching so that those of us who won’t be watching don’t have to. As I’ve thought for about 4 years now, the Dems are played out. No new ideas; no new leaders; nothing new to say and by god, Obama’s voice now only triggers my gag reflex. And, more importantly, a bunch of people mostly reared at the public teat who are desparate for one thing only – to keep their jobs. Not to DO anything; just to keep the trappings of office.
The reason I found the RNC convention interesting was because they put forward a bunch of people we hadn’t heard from before – and a great many people we hadn’t heard from who just happened to be women and people of color. I found it fascinating that it seemed fresh and – dare I say it – young vs anyone I could even think might be on the DNC stage.
Lastly, I want to watch Bill, but I can’t. It will make me way too sad.
“Lastly, I want to watch Bill, but I can’t.”
How can you resist, Run? I get the “sad” part, but I’m not as disciplined as you.
I don’t want to see him carry the water for a lesser man. That’s what would make me sad. Hilary, wisely, arranged for a far away “diplomatic mission.” Although, to be fair, the Sec. of State usually doesn’t attend a politicial conventions.
Aha! Yeah, I get that.
Rumor has it that Chelsea may introduce Bill. Maybe it’s worth it to him to get her on this big stage.
Using Betty White as a response to Eastwood would be really smart. She is an obama supporter and her timing is impeccable. Is this a really going to happen?
There’s been a Facebook-fueled campaign for it, and I think it is a given. She’d ace it. And unlike Eastwood, she’s among the most-liked Americans.
God bless her – she’s a doll. But I have to admit I’m a wee bit sick of her.
But, the only way it would work is if Betty makes “fun” of Clint. 1) I don’t think she’d do it; there’s too much respect among themselves with that generation of actors; 2) I continue to think the Dems are misreading the appeal of Clint’s message. I think most people of his generation – and a lot outside of his generation got what he was doing and applauded it. I’m not sure what they think Betty would do to counteract it.
Pitting 2 great acting icons of that generation against each other just doesn’t seem smart to me. Now, if they had her do something funny against Romney straight, without it seeming a dig at Eastwood, that would have legs.
Betty White is nearly a decade older than Clint Eastwood, that alone could be mined. A talented writer can can use her and Eastwood’s established personas for some funny good natured ribbing that needn’t be disrespectful or uncomfortable for either of those old pros. I can even see her calling him up first and saying I feel I have to do this and him responding you go girl. Americans are tired and sad and scared and angry; nothing cuts through that better than an old survivor kicking around some funny lines. Write Betty her trademark sexual double entendres, some toss-offs about aging that implicitly jab at Romney/Ryan’s plans to gut Medicare/SS, and an Obama endorsement, and you’ve got a winner of a speaker. It’d go viral in an instant.
Now, I’m not sure this generation of writers know how to do that, how to be funny and serious and pointed and respectful at once. But if anyone connected to the DNC can do that, it’d be gold for Democrats. And Betty White, who has had real ups and downs in her career and personal life, and has always wanted very much to be top-ranked, would be thrilled at being invited to introduce the President.
If the DNC hasn’t done everything they can to get Betty White for their convention, they’re utter fools.
Oh come now. Your ignorance of women’s history is truly disappointing. Google could have helped you find the numerous female spies of the Civil War, so you could have pulled at least one Union angel out of your ass. For example, Mary E. Walker? She’d have been perfect because not only was she a spy, as was Fluke last week at the RNC, she also held a post-secondary degree and dressed as a man so she could prove herself and gain further opportunity after the war.
That said, I feel ya on the DNC. I’ll watch, but I’m not happy about it.
John’s saying that he’s not sure who Sandra Fluke is in the context of a civil war re-enactment – as in, who she’d play. You don’t really read posts, do you?
My great-grandmother was a Confederate spy. Her family was pro-union but she fell in love with a southern sympathizer who then was bushwhacked by northern sympathizers. She married another man and their daughter, my grandmother, married a nephew of my g-granny’s first love. Weird how things work out – I probably wouldn’t be here except for the fact that my gg-uncle Christopher Columbus Johns was bushwhacked at age 18.
“Oh come now. Your ignorance of women’s history is truly disappointing.”
FCS, could you please knock off the nasty swipes?! Can’t stand it when people drop in to insult the blogger — it’s downright rude.
FYI, JWS has commented on Fluke before and clearly knows who she is; in fact, there’re few, if any bloggers, who’re more au courant with current affairs than John. He obviously meant what Jay describes (above).
Oops. In my sensitivity toward Lola snarking at the host, I misread HER comment while accusing her of misreading John’s post.
My bad. Another dick sticker goes on my helmet.
Ugh, I too misread Lola’s comment, and for the same reason Jay did.
Apologies, Lola.
Are you still smarting over my smackdown, little fly, or are you just always cantankerous? I gave him an example of a Civil War spy/activist she could play, dufus. Talk about not reading posts.
I’ll put a dick sticker on mine, too, since I didn’t finish reading the thread of comments before I replied.
But seriously, you people need to lighten the fuck up. I was JOKING, FFS. John and I are on great terms and he knows when I’m kidding him. You guys brawl in here all fucking day long and when I do it, you pounce. It’s really stupid & frustrarting, and why I don’t comment as much as I used to
Yeah Lola, the ‘get mad and start typing’ thing is a mistake I make sometimes even though I’m sooo aware of it. No harm no foul.
Shanking the etch a sketch on this one.
Shanking. Shanking the etch a sketch.
Oy.
Ha! I was saying I don’t know who she’d play in that wee drama. however, the good news is no I don’t know much about women spies in the civil war and I am a bit of an American history junkie…so onward to more learning.
I very much know who Fluke is. She’s proof that Andy Warhol was a prophet.
I don’t “get” her in this context. As in – the point of Fluke is to get single women on board, which presumably they already are. Why Obama has elevated this particular spokeswoman is weird. The dude needs to shave off some married women’s votes from MR. Fluke isn’t the person to do that. I saw at Craydad that they are actually selling “Sluts vote” buttons- effectively engraving slut on her forehead.
I mean, I’D wear one of those buttons for the kick of it. I’m not sure legions of delegates on the DNC floor being interviewed with “Sluts vote!” buttons on will appeal to suburban moms.
Morons.
Perhaps a “Floozies Phone bank!” campaign is next.
Thanks. I’m of the same mind. We’re good. Love the dick sticker thing, truly.
I think you may have answered your own question, John. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe micro-testing is showing they just aren’t that into him anymore. One thing I’ve noticed about a lot of young women today is that they are shamelessly ambitious–which I think is a good thing, ftr.
If they’re looking at their future and asking valid questions about what they can expect under Obama’s stewardship, that would not bode well for Obama. Remember, some polls have been showing young people fading away from Obama. They aren’t necessarily on board with Romney, but that doesn’t matter. Obama needs them more.
FTR, I know you meant “shaking,” but I’m giggling my ass off over here imaging a Jolly Green Giant-sized gay man with a homemade toothbrush-style shank in hand going after an etch-a-sketch. It’s your voice. It’s so deep I imagine you as really, really tall.
For what it’s worth, I think that whole “Life of Julia” campaign backfired big time on Obama. You have to figure that when Jon Stewart mocks something, the idea has jumped the shark — especially with college age peeps.
How O plans to mimic Bill: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_lizza
Fio, thanks for linking that article. What do you think of its advance release (check out the byline future date)? The reason I ask is because it resurrects that long-moribund story about Bill Clinton allegedly making an ugly comment to Ted K.. Since the New Yorker is virtually an organ of the Dem Party, I can’t help thinking that the re-tarring of WJC with the racist brush just days before his prime-time speech is not accidental.
I read that piece the other night. I concur that bringing up this stuff now is all about creating a narrative for the week while ensuring that Barry is not upstaged. I am quite sure Obama won’t be upstaged now. Why? 1. Bill is up against the first NFL game of the year. Not even Bill Clinton can beat that. 2. Barry’s peeps are bussing in thousands for the stadium speech. Even if Obama is a bore we’ll get “sports camera panning” of orgasmic Obots – this will fuel the reporting on the speech – this will translate to a bump – this will translate to a minor explosion of overt Obamamania. In short, what matters here – in the cult – is Barry’s ego. On some level everyone who supports him knows this. Protection of Obama’s ego is paramount.
Just wondering – I watched all of the RNC on C-SPAN. How did the rest of you watch or how do you plan to watch the DNC? Personally, I’ve had it with the talking heads on all the stations.
Greyledge: I heard parts of the RNC convention live on the radio, and then followed up with a vid of the same speech on the internet.
Anyone know if C-Span is included in a barebones cable package (the type one gets merely to clear the TV blizzard)? I haven’t watched TV in two years now.
C-Span all the way. I too have had it with talking heads. They drive me mad- and I can listen and figure it out without their “help.”
I wish C-SPan would carry the World Series.
I watched CNN, c-span, and Fox. CNN’s coverage was “okay” which is apparently their goal in all things – okay. C-span was dull but worked. Fox’s coverage was pretty good in so much as they rah-rahed but not to excess. Moderate rah rahing doesn’t bother me in this context. The whole thing is an infomercial anyway. Fox does actually invite liberals on and then allow them to speak for more than a sentence before the eye rolls and huffing begins. Libs are allowed to land a blow on Fox. They just tend to be out numbered. The panels all favored conservatives but the liberals where given time. I noted this in the primaries as well. Well spoken libs were on every night – and given time. It’s what made me realize one should watch Fox if one is going to slam it. Juan Williams deep sixed himself with his “corporate wife” comment. He was gone after that but he did that to himself.
NES = I never think of the radio. I’ll admit here my heresy as a Republican – I have only listened to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show a handful of times, the last time probably being back in the mid-1990s. I’m just not into radio talk (this may be a reaction to my Dad keeping his radio tuned all night to Larry King back in the 70s, long before CNN). We have DISH so I don’t have a clue on the C-SPAN/bare bones cable question.
John = Fox and CNN both repeat their wind-up commentary so when everything is over I watch one and then the repeat from the other. My complaint is I want to hear the speeches and until the last hour, both stations talk/interview through them. The downside is that DISH doesn’t offer C-SPAN in HD (don’t even know if it is available in HD) so I have to sneak a peek every now and again at another station just to see some of the folks in HD.
As to Juan Williams’ comment – I was more bothered by the underlying inference that Ann Romney might be lying about living like, as he put it, “regular folks”. My husband and I both came from comfortable backgrounds but we started out married life in a small apartment with hand-me-down curtains and furniture except for a huge sofa we picked up at a yard sale for $35. It was fugly but it served its purpose for the first couple of years. L’amour, toujours l’amour!
NES- I have absolute bare bones cable and we get C-Span- but I think it depends on your cable provider.
I think the Obama campaign is installing brain implants for free that will allow you to see him all the time. Check their website.
hahahaha Jay.
Thanks Mom. I’ll look into it then.
I don’t get the animosity toward Sandra Fluke, here. I really don’t.
What has she done to earn such contempt?
Speaking only for myself, Sweet Sue, I don’t feel “contempt” for her; that’s too strong. I lost a lot of respect for her, however, when she became a shill for Obama and the Dems’ so-called War on Women. That said, I sort of understand that it must be hard to resist the attentions of the POTUS and one’s 15 mins. of fame.
Sue – For me, it’s like almost everything else the Obama Party does – it’s all stagecraft. Nancy Pelosi trotted out Sandra Fluke as a sweet young Georgetown law student who just wanted to advocate for free birth control. Instead, she turned out to be a committed activist who had a long collaboration with the Dems. Also as the Obama Party is wont to do, the truth isn’t enough. It has to be embellished. In this case, Fluke testified that contraception would set back the average female approximately $1,000/year over her 3-year law school gig. This gets the press time rather than the truth that most women have access to Walmart, Walgreen’s, CVS, etc., and can obtain birth control pills for $10-20 per month or $120-240/year – a far cry from $1,000. Why the necessity to embellish? Then, after Limbaugh stepped in it, we had the highly publicized personal follow-up call from Obama to Fluke and her parents. Now she’s a DNC star. Sorry, it’s all just dishonest and smarmy to me and she’s been a willing dupe through it all.