Join 3,524 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


another one bites the dust
February 26, 2009 8:46 PM   Subscribe

Ladies and Gentlemen, your prayers have been answered. Tucker Carlson is no longer a character in his own life and he has returned to being a huckster for regional Republican sideshows.
posted by parmanparman (77 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Um, some context for the Tucker Carlson-unaware might have been useful.
posted by awfurby at 8:55 PM on February 26, 2009


I can't understand why Carlson will bother to write a speech when he can easily buy one for a few dollars.
posted by netbros at 8:55 PM on February 26, 2009


Yeah, good luck convincing conservatives that facts don't hate America, Tucker.
posted by Flunkie at 8:59 PM on February 26, 2009 [3 favorites]


Holy Shit. David Brooks and now this? Is there a burgeoning class of formerly talking-head reactionary conservatives who are now finally trying to bring iconoclastic thoughtfulness to their ideology?

Over in the Jindal thread, there's been a lot of talk about the Republican party possibly imploding/splintering in the foreseeable future. I don't see a way that can happen, personally. Rush basically owns Steele already, and with it the trademark to the name "Republican," and the moderates don't have any base to rely on.

Still, what a weird day when Brooks and Carlson are making me feel better about the potential state of discourse in this country. I don't like where they're going (I am an avowed liberal, after all) but I like the fact that at least one prominent conservative is drawing a line in the sand between "determine our spin and then find/fabricate the facts to suit it" and "Lat's find the facts first."

I know I would hate any spin Carlson put on his facts, but damned if he doesn't at least have his priorities in better order than the rest of the crowd there. If any of my prayers are answered with this clip, they are in a "be careful what you wish for" kind of manner. Because I really hope that people listen to him here, and don't just discount him for having the temerity to spew anything other than bile at the New York Times.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:01 PM on February 26, 2009 [2 favorites]


Bwahahaha, what's funnier then him getting booed is what he's getting booed for for having the audacity to claim that conservatives need to worry about accuracy, and not just spout bullshit. And the conservatives boo this!

When the republicans were actually running things, and lying all the time, you kind of figured they were lying because they wanted to cover up what they were doing, not admit their mistakes, and so on. But now they're out of power, they're not doing anything and they still lie all the time!

Their defeat has washed away any pretense of rationality, what's left is the brutal, ugly frame of absolute madness that held up their structure. Those people are living in a parallel universe of their own creation, insulated from facts and reality, and jeering at the idea of leaving it.

I don't think we'll have to worry about them for a while.
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on February 26, 2009 [27 favorites]


.. is.. wha..?
posted by slater at 9:17 PM on February 26, 2009


I always get him and Tucker Max mixed up. Or was that Max Power? I forget.

The average mefite seems to dislike them both.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:25 PM on February 26, 2009


I don't know what to be more worried about, The Republican Party or Joaquin Phoenix. Both seem to be publicly imploding.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:25 PM on February 26, 2009


"Why are you such a dick?"
posted by bardic at 9:27 PM on February 26, 2009


I always get him and Tucker Max mixed up. Or was that Max Power? I forget.

The average mefite seems to dislike them both.

posted by the other side at 9:34 PM on February 26, 2009


CPAC ain't regional. Its the head of the snake.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:43 PM on February 26, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't think we'll have to worry about them for a while.

I don't know. They play Machiavellian politics with such fervor that they could conceivably get into office while actually being intensely unpopular, just through behind-the-scenes politicking, gerrymandering and voter suppression. Don't forget, Bush was rather unpopular during the 2004 election; we knew what we were getting, and we still kept him in office.

Obama is going to have to work to relevel the playing field if this nation is to truly be put back onto the long-term path to sanity.
posted by JHarris at 9:49 PM on February 26, 2009


My prayers regarding Tucker Carlson involve him being busted en flagrante with a bathtub full of whipped cream, a staggering amount of crystal meth and a four male prostitutes.


This is not even close to an answer to that prayer. I guess that's what I get for being a pantheist.
posted by louche mustachio at 10:32 PM on February 26, 2009 [5 favorites]


As long as the Republicans were in power, Tucker played that part. Now that they're on the outs, Tucker gets all reasonable-ish. He's never been anything but a smarmy player, gaming the media scam for whatever he could and skating off on the thin ice of a new day.

I predict his effort to rehabilitate his image will fail.
posted by darkstar at 10:37 PM on February 26, 2009 [4 favorites]


I predict his effort to rehabilitate his image will fail.

I liked him better when he had a cheesy bow tie. He was smarmy, smug and stupid, but he had panache. Now he's just smarmy, smug and stupid without the panache. Doesn't work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 PM on February 26, 2009 [2 favorites]


I agree with the Pigeon. I didn't know who he was without the bowtie. Wait, it's Pileon? That makes no sense. I'm sticking with Pigeon. And the bowtie. Suck it you reality-based fact checkers.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:44 PM on February 26, 2009


Tucker Carlson is just another tool in a big, well-stocked toolbox.
posted by SteveTheRed at 11:53 PM on February 26, 2009 [7 favorites]


I have no idea what the title or editorializing in the post was trying to communicate.
In the clip linked Tucker Carlson finally said something I and my political ilk agree with, and in front of CPAC at that. Isn't that a good thing?

"Previous speakers [at CPAC] have included Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich. Before, during, and after his Presidency, Ronald Reagan spoke at CPAC a total of 12 times."

I know I've always been right about everything so this doesn't apply to me.
That Tucker Carlson said what he said, to the people he said it to, makes me happy. Schadenfreude is fun but not constructive in the long run.
posted by vapidave at 12:27 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't think we'll have to worry about them for a while.

on the contrary, their marginalization could in fact make them more dangerous given the right brew of political crisis and desperate economic conditions.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:51 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Blazecock Pigeon" that is some bad-ass shit.
posted by From Bklyn at 3:06 AM on February 27, 2009


I don't think we'll have to worry about them for a while.

Before everyone starts measuring a coffin for the Republican Party, remember something. As long as there are conservative, born-again, anti-choice, fundamentalist Christians, the Republicans will always have a rock-solid base. These folks got whipped in the last election, but if another charismatic type is able to take the reigns (sorry Palin, Jidal), then those folks will come out of their slumber with a vengeance. Unless Obama really screws up, they don't have a chance in '12. But give it eight years (I know, it seems like a long way off--it ain't), and the Republican Party could have a new..."Obama" in 2016.
posted by zardoz at 3:35 AM on February 27, 2009


As long as there are conservative, born-again, anti-choice, fundamentalist Christians, the Republicans will always have a rock-solid base.

Which is why I've long said that while health care is a great way to win the next couple of election cycles, free college education today is the way to establish a permanent liberal majority starting about 30 years from now.
posted by DU at 4:13 AM on February 27, 2009 [9 favorites]


This country is headed towards civil war.
posted by stbalbach at 4:40 AM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


Nobody cares enough to go to civil war.
posted by autodidact at 4:43 AM on February 27, 2009 [8 favorites]


CPAC ain't regional. Its the head of the snake.

I think you've got your ends of the snake confused. The head is the end that bites, not the one with the shit coming out of it.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:44 AM on February 27, 2009 [5 favorites]


He's still a douchebag.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:48 AM on February 27, 2009


I don't think we'll have to worry about them for a while.

By being out of power, Republicans will manage to avoid most of the blame for shitty times to come. Meanwhile, people will tire of working together and want to grab more for themselves. That's when the party of selfishness will return.
posted by pracowity at 5:10 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just came in here to say "Blazecock Pigeon".
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:17 AM on February 27, 2009


The C-PAC is such a circus side show. This is the "grass-roots" of the Republican party. They let every foaming-at-the-mouth righty have their 15 minutes of rant giving the illusion that they are a party of the people, when really the RNC could care less what these people say, much less think on any issue. The RNC will keep on cutting their deals with their big business friends, taxing and spending, raping and pillaging, and screwing the very people that vote for them while all the while blaming the "Liberals" for the woes of the world and the cost of the big government they themselves created. Then they trapse out the C-PAC loonies to scream and yell about how the hethens are leading us down the road to Sovietism. Occasionally the loonies manage to convince enough morans that the Libruls may actually trying to take their trailer and the GOP rolls back into power.

To stop those monsters 1-2-3,
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free,
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee*...
Just don't look! Just don't look!
Just don't look! Just don't look!
Just don't look! Just don't look!



*Guarantee void in Tennessee.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:33 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


The most astonishing thing for me has been watching Charles Johnson's journey from doctrinaire neocon to critic of the right's Jesustani contingent. Not only does he post at least one anti-creationist thread per day, he's openly criticizing that epicene holothurian Rush Limbaugh over Jindal.
posted by fleetmouse at 5:47 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think you've got your ends of the snake confused. The head is the end that bites, not the one with the shit coming out of it.

So this is a two-assed snake we're talking about, then?
posted by god hates math at 5:47 AM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


Okay.
posted by Eideteker at 5:52 AM on February 27, 2009


I will always be grateful to Tucker Carlson for giving Rachel Maddow her start on TV.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:00 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I read the blog that must not be named.*
I originally started reading it because I wanted to know what conservatives were thinking. And Charles is still emphatically conservative. But he's honest about it, and not at all like the typical MeFi caricature of the rabid conservative. The man has principles and he sticks by them. Which seems to be putting him at odds with what remains of the Republican power structure.

He rules his blog with an iron fist, and there is definitely a centralized editorial policy that would be abhorrent to your typical lefty Metafiltrarian, but lately he's taken on Malkin, Limbaugh, Jindal, and creationists. He still likes Palin, though. Go figure.

*really, don't mention it by name.
posted by Richard Daly at 6:12 AM on February 27, 2009


I will always be grateful to Tucker Carlson for giving Rachel Maddow her start on TV.

I'm pretty sure that's the second time you've drooled over Rachel Maddow in the last couple of days. Once more this week and she's going to call the cops. Or call you. Depending.
posted by pracowity at 6:19 AM on February 27, 2009


What-ever!

This guy had absolutely no problems spouting ridiculous, indefensible pap with a smirk when the Republicans had it all. Now that they're in tatters, he decides, "What's this 'integrity' and 'rational thinking' everyone keeps praising Obama for? Maybe if I can fake that, my carreer still has a chance!"

This would be far, far more meaningful of he'd always been some kind of Goldwateresque conservative instead of a parrot for the neo-con talking box. As it is, he sounds like the guy who spent his life breaking kneecaps to collect gambling debts, gets in the middle of a mob war, gets arrested, and then decides that organized crime is very, very bad and he wants to turn a new leaf.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:44 AM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]


Dude, if my prayers have indeed been answered, then WHERE THE FUCK IS MY ACID-BREATH AND WHERE ARE MY BAT WINGS????

jeez.

And yes, it is entertaining to see a guy getting booed for exhorting his audience to consider the facts rather than try to square-peg 'em into the ideological round hole. And it's also a little scary.
posted by Mister_A at 6:55 AM on February 27, 2009


...the guy who spent his life breaking kneecaps to collect gambling debts, gets in the middle of a mob war, gets arrested, and then decides that organized crime is very, very bad and he wants to turn a new leaf.

No, he's more like the guy that was riding the gravy train without having to operate a brain. Then the gravy train stopped and he's trying to get into the engine room and make it operate on something other than rainbows and unicorns so he can get his ride back.

Tucker doesn't care about facts because he thinks facts matter. He cares about facts because he sees the Left caring about facts and the Left just won an election. He's a political cargo cultist. He's had it drilled into his head that the NYT is liberal. Liberals are on top. Therefore whatever the NYT is doing is what conservatives should be doing. (And he's not the only one. Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal are very, very ham-handed attempts to be as change-y as the Democrats.)
posted by DU at 7:00 AM on February 27, 2009 [7 favorites]


Tucker doesn't care about facts because he thinks facts matter. He cares about facts because he sees the Left caring about facts and the Left just won an election. He's a political cargo cultist. He's had it drilled into his head that the NYT is liberal. Liberals are on top. Therefore whatever the NYT is doing is what conservatives should be doing.

That's exactly what I mean. "All you need is sincerity - if you can fake that, you got it made", or something like that.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:08 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I always get him and Tucker Max mixed up.

The difference is simple. Hide your sister and your female friends from Tucker Max. Hide the entire country and its political system from Tucker Carlson. Tucker Max screws only one woman at a time (or two if he's really lucky). Tucker Carlson enables the people who screw the entire country.
posted by jonp72 at 7:13 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't know whether the Republicans are headed for a long period in the desert of irrelevancy yet, but it's fun to speculate. And in the meantime, any former war-pimpin', hate-filled, economy-screwin' pundit who now wants me to believe they've discovered a magic box of Ethics Dust that has transformed them into someone worth listening to can bite me. My prayers for what should happen to Carlson and his ilk have not yet remotely been answered, seeing as they mostly involve much more suffering. But I will settle for simply having them be ignored and/or laughed into well-deserved obscurity.
posted by emjaybee at 7:15 AM on February 27, 2009


I don't think the GOP floor is in sight till they start seriously thinking about why Ron Paul was so successful. This is gonna take a while.
posted by butterstick at 8:18 AM on February 27, 2009


I don't think the GOP floor is in sight till they start seriously thinking about why Ron Paul was so successful.

Successful by what metric? He won 29 delegates out of a little over 2000. His supporters were wildly enthusiastic, sure, and that's great, but there weren't enough of them to make any kind of difference.
posted by EarBucket at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2009


Who among us HASN'T read that as 'Blazecock Pigeon' at one point or another?
posted by kingbenny at 8:29 AM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


I kind of miss the bow tie. It made me think of a younger Les Nessman from WKRP In Cincinnati. It made him more watchable.
posted by lordrunningclam at 8:37 AM on February 27, 2009


Successful by what metric? He won 29 delegates out of a little over 2000.

Well certainly not by delegate count. The Winner-Takes-All format makes that fairly useless. But hey, delegates are all that really matters though, so I'll concede your point. I think he had a genuine groundswell of interest and did a good job of raising money and grassroots support. Money being much easier to measure than the later.

He tapped into a rich vein of disgruntled and principled Republicans. Probably the closest to a populist candidate than any other the party as seen. He had to buck the machine each step of the way, and THAT is where the GOP should be directing its navel gazing.
posted by butterstick at 8:39 AM on February 27, 2009


Christ, what a dick.
posted by slogger at 8:44 AM on February 27, 2009


I kind of miss the bow tie.

He stole that from George Will, who's a hundred times smarter and has infinitely more class.
posted by jonmc at 8:53 AM on February 27, 2009


I don't think the GOP floor is in sight till they start seriously thinking about why Ron Paul was so successful.

If only there were some way to find out more about him.
posted by DU at 8:55 AM on February 27, 2009 [9 favorites]


George Will knows baseball, too. Hey did you see Reyes hit a homer from either side of the plate? Wowee!

/Mets derail
posted by Mister_A at 8:56 AM on February 27, 2009


Who among us HASN'T read that as 'Blazecock Pigeon' at one point or another?

I've never done that. But dirtydumbbagelboy seems to happen a lot...
posted by troybob at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


While my merriment at Tucker getting jeered by the true faithful, it is tempered by the fact that, by-and-large, these people are very, very good at leading public opinion by the nose to the trough they want the voters to drink from. Even now, you can hear the drumbeats.

Sure, they got spanked in November, but that's yet to be shown to be anything lasting. They have two years to convince the voters that last November was a serious malfunction and that the results were nothing more than a case of mass-insanity.

In two years time, if the economy doesn't show any real signs of recovery (and that will mean meaningful job creation...not just the Dow climbing back to 10,000. Average Americans have long-ago come to understand that disconnection) then the conservatives stand a very good chance of taking-back the Senate and making gains in the House. And, if things actually get worse between now and the mid-terms...well...all bets are off.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


Probably the closest to a populist candidate than any other the party as seen.

Really? Ron Paul? Not Ross Perot? Not John Anderson? Pat Buchanan? And that's just the late 20th century right wing. Hell, Steve Forbes actually won states in the 96 primaries with nothing but pure populist schtick.

John Edwards came in third in the Democratic race just this last election cycle on populism, while Ron Paul was popular in Idaho and Montana and by popular I mean he came in second with a quarter of the vote to McCain's three quarters. Elsewhere he ran in the single digit percentages.

I'm not saying that Ron Paul wasn't a force to be reconed with and that he won't turn out to be a needed case study for GOP survival, but he was not the "revolution" that his supporters paint him to be on every internet site that permits commentary.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:24 AM on February 27, 2009


Last two Novembers, actually. And my understanding is that the baseline GOP Senate picture is even bleaker in 2010.
posted by DU at 9:26 AM on February 27, 2009


And, if things actually get worse between now and the mid-terms...well...all bets are off.

This is why the Republicans are so desperate to stave off any potential economic recovery. Frankly I think that misplaced loyalty to party over nation constitutes treason.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:31 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


He stole that from George Will, who's a hundred times smarter

George Will
is an utter dumbass, so if what you're saying is true, Tucker Carlson should not be able to even speak.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:39 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't think there's much to worry about for the midterms. Even if things are bad the Republican leadership still won't have anything to offer. If they hold this "tax cuts are the answer" line the whole time, regardless of stagnant or worsening conditions, they won't even be able to hold onto to what they've got. If any Republican does have unexpected success, it will be because they break with this radical conservative dogma. And that rabid base still won't get the message.
posted by effwerd at 9:43 AM on February 27, 2009


I'm a broken record on this, but I think Obama is recalibrating the discourse such that the crazier of the Republicans are being walled off. The more rational, cool, and intelligent he appears to the American people, the more ridiculous appears his shrill, willfully ignorant opposition. In the post-summit press conference earlier this week, in his call for comments and even challenges from both sides, he basically told them, "You got something to say? Say it to my face!" The best McCain could do was to try to saddle him with a helicopter scandal, and Obama tossed it off and got a laugh at the same time. Barton tried to give him hell on including the minority (which was funny in that I don't imagine there was ever a similar opportunity for a Democrat to challenge Bush face-to-face on national television as Barton was able to do with Obama), and Obama turned the criticism back onto the Republicans. So I think they're scrambling on how to respond to him. Their old tricks don't work on him; and as the Jindal thing demonstrated, in juxtaposition with Obama they don't work on us, either. (I also saw this frustration in an Olbermann clip of Limbaugh; I otherwise don't pay attention to him, so it may well be his norm, but his reaction to the Jindal thing seemed to verge on panic.)

As satisfying as it is to see Obama exercise this kind of control, and make it look easy, it's not to say that I'm not a fan of dumping partisan bitterness. Since the election my hope has been that the Republican defeat would force them to reassess themselves and jettison the parts that have so poisoned discourse over the past decades, and even to inspire the Democrats to do the same. (Yeah, I know that's idealistic.) We need the push and pull of debate, but that works much better on a foundation of rationality. If Carlson and his like want to move more in that direction, for whatever motivation, I don't mourn it at all.
posted by troybob at 9:43 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm not saying that Ron Paul wasn't a force to be reconed with and that he won't turn out to be a needed case study for GOP survival, but he was not the "revolution" that his supporters paint him to be on every internet site that permits commentary.

Then we are in agreement, no? I never suggested that he was a r3voLution-ary candidate. He's not, but like Perot and Forbes, he resonates with the party that isn't just RaRaReagan, but honestly believes in less government, not NO government. This should be the new base of the GOP. Right now you can't out-prole the Democrats, which means that as elections become more egalitarian, the GOP needs to adjust. I don't think they'll be able to ignore the 50 state strategy for much longer, not to mention the Emerging Democratic Majority. Candidates like Ron Paul and Ross Perot are not incompatible with these trends, but the current GOP is.
posted by butterstick at 9:49 AM on February 27, 2009


I think he had a genuine groundswell of interest and did a good job of raising money and grassroots support. Money being much easier to measure than the later.

He tapped into a rich vein of disgruntled and principled Republicans.


Are we talking about the same Ron Paul who couldn't even get the support of his own district in the presidential primaries? I'm not seeing a lot of "resonance" there.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:06 AM on February 27, 2009


I'd love for us to have an opposition party to help keep the ruling party in check.

My preferred opposition party would be sincerely for fiscal responsibility, wise investment, common-sense pragmatism, preserving human rights and promoting equality, progress as a civilization, transparency and accountability in government. You know, a party that would act as a foil to the ruling party's eventual temptation to slide into power-grabs and corruption (because it seems inevitable, regardless of who's in power).

It'd be great to have an opposition party like that. The problem is, the Republican Party ain't it. And, as far as I can tell, never really was.
posted by darkstar at 10:20 AM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


He's not, but like Perot and Forbes, he resonates with the party that isn't just RaRaReagan, but honestly believes in less government, not NO government.

Except when it comes to women's health rights, the gays, and terrorists, otherwise known to him as black people. Then we need as much government as it takes to marginalize these dangers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


Are we talking about the same Ron Paul who couldn't even get the support of his own district in the presidential primaries? I'm not seeing a lot of "resonance" there.

I'm sure you can see some sort of resonance elsewhere. Me, I just search mefi for "paultard".
posted by butterstick at 10:24 AM on February 27, 2009


I'm sure you can see some sort of resonance elsewhere. Me, I just search mefi for "paultard".

The overall opinion of Ron Paul on Metafilter aside, I don't know where you're deriving this "tapped a rich vein" and "resonance" talk from, when not even his own 14th district chose him in the primaries (they went with McCain). Compare this to how even Mondale was able to win his home state against the unstoppable Reagan juggernaut in 1984. If Ron Paul really had this amazing resonance with conservatives, you think he'd be able to carry at least his own district, at least in the primaries.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:32 AM on February 27, 2009


If Ron Paul really had this amazing resonance with conservatives, you think he'd be able to carry at least his own district, at least in the primaries.

Sure, and bucking the GOP tends not to go over well in Texas while there is a Texan in the Whitehouse. He beat Rudy and Fred Thompson on delegates, both of whom were getting non-stop press leading up to the actual voting. He raised a record 20 million on the net before the primary started. So it's not like there is nothing there...

I'm not sure how many times I have to clarify this; I'm not saying he was "amazing" or "revolutionary". He's a loon. He's a racist. He's overly conservative. What I am saying, is that the GOP needs to stop laughing at their own factions which buck the machine. What we see with Jindal and Steele is more of the same rhetoric that is 20 years stale, and ignoring these outsider performances is particularly unwise once you realize that they have more in common with the winning campaign than the loser.
posted by butterstick at 10:47 AM on February 27, 2009


Now that they're in tatters, he decides...

"Now that they're in *taters*, he decides..."

FTFY.
posted by ericb at 11:02 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


Stewart putting the smackdown on Carlson on Crossfire is one of my favorite TV memories ever.
JS: "You're doing theater when you should be doing debate, which would be great. It's not honest. What you do is not honest, what you do is partisan hackery…
TC: "You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne, and you're accusing US of partisan hackery?"
JS: "Absolutely."
TC: "You've got to be kidding me!"
JS: "You're on CNN! The show that leads in to me is puppets making crank phone calls! What is wrong with you?!?"

JS: "You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably."
TC: "You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think."
JS: "You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk reactionary talk,"
TC: "Wait, I thought you were going to be funny. C'mon, be funny."
JS: "No, I'm not going to be your monkey."

posted by Fin Azvandi at 11:55 AM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]


He beat Rudy and Fred Thompson on delegates, both of whom were getting non-stop press leading up to the actual voting.

What I am saying, is that the GOP needs to stop laughing at their own factions which buck the machine. What we see with Jindal and Steele is more of the same rhetoric that is 20 years stale, and ignoring these outsider performances is particularly unwise once you realize that they have more in common with the winning campaign than the loser.


But at the same time Paul did not come close to Huckabee, Romney, or McCain, not even a little bit. The GOP had three bases to contend with in 2008 and none of those three were Paultards. The problem with the GOP isn't that they need to study their factions, its that they can't survive factions. They have established themselves as an established, idological, dogmatic organization. If one candidate has one priority and another has a different one with them they go to shit.

People say there is no difference in the GOP and DNC but this is the real difference right here. The DNC is nothing but wishy-washy shades of grey. There is no rigid, set platform with them. With the GOP, the rigid platform is the name of the game as if Regan brought them down from the mountain himself. When one Republican preaches to the Christian Fundamentalist ideologues at the expense of the Small Government Ideologues and the Fight Terror/Commies/Darkies/Unseen Enemy du jour Fearmongering Ideologues then everything unravels. If McCain says, "Abortion is wrong, but we've got bigger issues dealing with Iraq and the economy" then the robotic reactionary corps of anti-abortionists calls him soft on the issues. If Bush courts the religious right and bomb, bomb, bombs the Muslims and forgets to "shrink" the government (aka privatize functions) then they say he's losing touch with the fundamentals of the party.

The Democrats are a cluster fuck, sure, but us hippies have been throwing orgies since Jack and Bobby were swinging with Marilyn and we know that you don't get too hung up if one guy gets more time with the blonde than you did before the whistle blows. The GOP is just going to have to find a way to juggle their three balls or they will have to split and go their seperate ways.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:17 PM on February 27, 2009 [4 favorites]


The GOP had three bases to contend with in 2008 and none of those three were Paultards. The problem with the GOP isn't that they need to study their factions, its that they can't survive factions. They have established themselves as an established, idological, dogmatic organization. If one candidate has one priority and another has a different one with them they go to shit.

YES. This is exactly the navel gazing I think they need to do. I think their Winner-Take-All primaries embody this perfectly, and I would put that at or near the top of the list of structural elements of the party to reform. They've essentially become very out of touch with their own electorate.
posted by butterstick at 12:46 PM on February 27, 2009


YES. This is exactly the navel gazing I think they need to do. I think their Winner-Take-All primaries embody this perfectly, and I would put that at or near the top of the list of structural elements of the party to reform. They've essentially become very out of touch with their own electorate.

You sound as if you want them to survive! Personally, I'd prefer they go down trying to kill each other for "lacking true conviction" while the left truly lacks conviction and stomps the hell out of them anyway, but that is just me.

Sure, they need to take a look at themselves, but its much more fun to watch them be hoisted by their own rigid, unbending, fundamentalist petard.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:51 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


,,,but its much more fun to watch them be hoisted by their own rigid, unbending, fundamentalist petard.

I've looked forward to this as well; however, for eight years we've seen them hoisted by their own rigid, unbending, fundamentalist retard, and they have yet to display an ounce of shame.
posted by troybob at 1:03 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


You sound as if you want them to survive! Personally, I'd prefer they go down trying to kill each other for "lacking true conviction" while the left truly lacks conviction and stomps the hell out of them anyway, but that is just me.

I do. If I can't have more than 2 parties than I at least want them BOTH to be vibrant and dynamic, responding to their shifting electorates. I want them to compete with each other for votes so they have motive to improve the country.

Not that I'm not looking forward to the implosion, but fun != good governance.
posted by butterstick at 1:19 PM on February 27, 2009


Joe the Plumber suggests some members of Congress should be shot.
posted by homunculus at 5:37 PM on February 27, 2009


I felt a tiny bit sorry for Tucker, and this reminded me of John McCain trying to tell his supporters that Obama was a decent guy. In both cases, a reasonably intelligent and coherent member of the party is facing the ugly fact that his followers are not reasonable, intelligent, or coherent.
posted by mmoncur at 9:54 PM on February 27, 2009


What I am saying, is that the GOP needs to stop laughing at their own factions which buck the machine. What we see with Jindal and Steele is more of the same rhetoric that is 20 years stale, and ignoring these outsider performances is particularly unwise once you realize that they have more in common with the winning campaign than the loser.

I can abide that notion, when the candidates in question actually have workable ideas. Ron Paul though? Not so much. To be honest I haven't seen a Republican candidate in my lifetime who didn't in some way play on people's fears of ethnic minorities, homosexuals, communists or terrorists. That's just what American conservativism has become - Democrats are supposedly lovey-dovey pacifists who will embrace any new idea so long as it's "progressive", and Republicans are supposed to be the wall of morality holding back the rising floodwaters of liberal godlessness. If there are conservative politicians who contend differently, I'd be delighted to see them. Not sure what they would stand for, though.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:33 AM on February 28, 2009


Not to interrupt the hatefest or anything, but the type of commentary you see there sounds pretty typical of Tucker Carlson to me. We just don't usually see him addressing fellow conservatives. I think it's a mischaracterization to say he's just ditching old Republican tactics because they're out of style.

Say what you will about the guy, but I have respect for him because he at least makes an attempt to understand opposing views. (Perhaps more post-Jon-Stewart smackdown than pre-.)
posted by zennie at 8:24 PM on February 28, 2009


I can abide that notion, when the candidates in question actually have workable ideas.

Exactly, because bedrock conservatism is unworkable. ESPECIALLY the excessive morality. Conservative Americans have been sold this bill of goods over the past 30 years that addressed the psych profile of some "median conservative". This imaginary government was to be tough on crime, tough on defense, pure of character, and most importantly; out of my way. Nobody was concerned that these things were in opposition because each one was assumed to be willing to lie down with the other, and eventually add up to 50% + 1. It's the same thing a big business would do, but they thought they had it easier since they didn't need to dominate the entire market. It wasn't just the MBA jocks that took over the party and lionized the CEO, they brought their marketing departments with them as well. The focus groups dictated the composition of the party and the campaigns they would run.

So the GOP has been trying to market itself as the anti-government since 1980. Which is great in election season, but once they won they had to get in there and ... govern. The policies never worked, but the ideas behind them always resonated with their market. And I think they still do. I really think this is why the GOP re-alignment is going to take so long; all they have left to market is the anti-government stance, and all anyone wants right now is help from the government. So we're seeing Tucker Carlson and Rick Santelli and Michael Steel and Bobby Jindal all out there on message as usual, but they still haven't gotten that their message is resonating with less than 30% (or as i like to think of it, Crazification + 3) of the electorate.

So if I was in the GOP's position, I would at least try to be sincere about my devotion to free markets and limited government. I'd let the libtards run with the party because when they make wrong arguments, it is out of principle. We need a GOP we trust first, and then they can adjust their policies once they learn how to admit being wrong about them for all this time. They really are in quite a bind, because if they shift to a more moderate stance, it'll be all the more confusing to voters since they might as well vote for Democrats who have demonstrated moderation quite well over the same time span.

Time in the woods needs to start with an honest embrace of their principles before anyone can be expected to trust them to evolve them.
posted by butterstick at 1:14 PM on March 1, 2009


« Older Scraping Bottom: The Canadian Oil Boom....  |  Octopus chaos.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments