Dancing with the Pseudo-Intellects:  George Will Elimination Round


By now, even my middle-school paperboy can tick off 10 solid reasons why Mitt Romney won’t win the 2012 election.  The kid’s still young enough that his focus is mostly on bloopers, unforced errors and viral out-takes (i.e., the obvious) but there have been enough of them to convince my pint-sized pundit that Romney’s toast. 

One of the kid’s teachers, on the other hand, offers a slightly more incisive assessment that resonates with me:

The GOP’s Strategy for 2012:

1) brand the president a Kenyan, Marxist, community organizer
2) times are tough, keep ‘em tough by obstructing everything that might help the country
3) field a pack of whackadoo candidates and a boring white capitalista who could win (this time)
4) don’t offer a single new idea
5) show the world what right-wing extremism really looks like
6) make up a lot of stuff (budgets, voting records, facts)
7) sit back and let it happen, we’ll win!

Hard to imagine how such a brilliant strategy could go off the rails.  But it has . . . so, cue the Greek chorus of pundits, shock jocks, wingnuts and the TEA Party caucus to explain how Republicans managed to recover a fumble and run it back 80 yards to the wrong end zone.

Enter the solemnly erudite but bewildered conservative grey-beard, George Will, veteran of a hundred GOP cock-ups, to patiently explain, in words of two syllables or less for the hoi polloi, how life can be so . . . well . . . enigmatic. 

Certainly, if ever Republicans had all of their sheep duckies in a row, it was now. 2012—the year of the conservative tipping point when the republic would be restored to its strict Puritan Rightness and liberalism would be beaten into a bloody pulp, and left to limp off the field to be dependent forever on the kindness of strangers—instead of taxpayers.

Mr. Will enumerates the reasons why Obama should be losing right now in his signature adults-only snark style then concludes:

Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work.

And, according to Will that “something more benign” is Americans’ famous penchant for lavish “racial reparations”:

Perhaps a pleasant paradox defines this political season: That Obama is African American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up. Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.

Well, now, Mr. Will, I sense a little defensiveness.  How could anyone possibly construe your argument that Americans are willing to keep a bad President in office, because of his race, as racism? especially when the alternative is a candidate as warm and avuncular, as thrilling, imaginative and honest as Mitt Romney?  What other explanation could there possibly be?

Maybe it’s time to go full-time baseball spectator, Mr Will.  This article is patronizing, patriarchal political rubbish (and not particularly well-written: false equivalencies, bad metaphors and . . . what’s this? a double negative?

. . . reluctant not to give up on the first African-American president.

or was that more of a Freudian slip?

If Mr. Obama wins re-election it will more likely be for simpler reasons like this:

2008: GDP: -9.0%...Jobs per Month: -750K, Total Jobs: +1.1M.
2012: GDP: +1.3%..Jobs per Month: +100K; Total Jobs: +5.1M.

or this:

“Osama is dead and GM is alive” and that’s way more than Mitt promises.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra:

You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.

Mitt’s a loser, George, suck it up . . .

Posted by Bette Noir on 10/03/12 at 09:57 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaEditorialsElection '12Mittens

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Some days, in absence of the energy to form a cogent argument in favor of liberalism and defense of our politicians and policies, I seriously consider just chanting “sccccooooooreboaaard, scoooooreboaaard”.

But if Will is right, and we don’t want to get rid of Obama for the reasons he “darkly” (hm?) hints at, what would be the dumbest….


So, Obama’s re-election is more likely because he’s black?  I can’t wait for the next howler, like Mitt claiming he’d be winning the election if he were Latino.

What’s up with these privileged white a-holes?

Comment by Big Bad Bald Bastard on 10/03/12 at 03:29 PM

@ B4 a hefty, hefty dose of a-holeness.  Must’ve been the all-American Wheaties . . .

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main