NY Times Goes Catty, Conspiratorial: GOP 'Elites' Huddle on K Street to Nominate 'Dweeb' for 2012
Republican “Dweebs”? So much for the new tone. Jonathan Chait, a sarcastic and partisan writer (and admitted Bush-hater) for the liberal New Republic magazine, has the first story in the latest edition of the New York Times’s Sunday magazine: “The G.O.P.’s Dukakis Problem -- Why Republicans will nominate a dweeb to run against Obama in 2012.”
Coming from a writer for a magazine that pitches itself as liberalism for grownups, Chait’s argument is surprisingly unsophisticated and conspiratorial. Yet it was apparently pleasing enough to lead off this Sunday's edition of the newly revamped Times magazine.
The Republican Party’s presidential-nominating process has always been run by elites. Oh, the voters have their brief moments of triumph, hoisting up an unelectable right-winger (i.e., Pat Buchanan) or an uncontrollable moderate (John McCain, the circa-2000 version). But the establishment always wins. Meeting in their K Street offices and communicating through organs like George Will’s column and National Review, the main financers and organizers settle upon a useful frontman, a reliable vessel for the party’s agenda who -- and this is the crucial part -- is blessed with the requisite political talent. Democrats have been known to mess that last part up and nominate a dweeb, but Republicans have generally understood that an agenda tilted toward the desires of the powerful requires a skilled frontman who can pitch Middle America. Favorite character types include jocks, movie stars, folksy Texans and war heroes.
....
Now here is where the story gets strange. The candidates they are recruiting make Michael Dukakis look like John F. Kennedy. They are qualified enough to serve as president, but wildly unqualified to run for president. One way to put this is that most powerful people in the G.O.P. have suddenly gone idealistic. Another way to put it is that they’ve lost their minds.
....
The answer to that question is Jeb Bush. Naturally, Republicans are courting the brother of the former president as well. Now, the ex-governor of Florida does have a great deal of natural political talent, but he suffers from an inherent branding challenge. Imagine ad firms trying to persuade consumers to give “Spoiled-Brand Milk” or “Kamikaze Airlines” a try. You would insist they just change the name, right? Bush can’t do that. ....
And then, finally, there is Haley Barbour, the Mississippi governor. Barbour is somewhat slimmer and considerably nicer than Christie. A former tobacco lobbyist and occasional pre-civil-rights-era nostalgic, Barbour is the comic embodiment of his party’s most negative stereotypes. A Barbour nomination would be the rough equivalent of the Democrats’ nominating Howard Dean, if Dean also happened to be a draft-dodging transsexual owner of a vegan food co-op.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I'd have a hard time trying
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:26pm.
I'd have a hard time trying to find anybody who is more of a dweeb than Boy Blunder!!!
Wasn't he a member and big
Submitted by buddyc on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:29pm.
Wasn't he a member and big contributor to journolist?
Look the left's playbook is to spend the next few weeks and months belittling the potential republican nominees in general. Normally they would attack them individually but whent he republicans surprised them and decided they were not going to come out campainging as early as the democrats did, they adopted "attack them all" strategy.
The dem hacks in the media (generally the bigger the hack the more he/she tows the party line) are all carrying out this assignment.
The field of republican candidates is NOT weak. The republican nominee is not selected by the wealthy elite.
Chait needs to look at how Obama was selected. He was selected by 3 people/groups; 1. Hollywood, 2. Soros, and 3. Union leadership.
The New Republic Like A College Paper
Submitted by Boil It Down on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:57pm.
It seems to me that the only times The New Republic has been on the right side of history have been purely by accident. The shear volume of sophomoric prattle that come from them is simply astounding. They don't seem to be able to go back and look at their own history to attempt improvement. Of course, I realize that they are all about pushing the leftist ideology and have little concern for objectivity.
The New York TImes magazine must not be worrying about being taken seriously if they're using a story from a New Republic writer.
Well if the Republicans are going to nominate a "Dweeb"....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 1:56pm.
when they don't......can he play smack a LIBERAL HACK.... Lets see Schultz, Clift, Rhoades, Malloy, O'Donnell (Larry and his sister Rosie), Grafalo, Mika B.. the list is LONG isn't it of LIBERAL HACKS..... there must be a line at the Obama Urinal..... they are ready to get their draft of the Obama Recycled Kool-Aide....Drink Deep Liberals and keep chanting hope and change...... hope and change.... The dope is strange....... LOL
Hey you,...Chait for brains.
Submitted by Colt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:46pm.
Really. That's all I had for him.
And now, for something totally un-related...
Here's a Washington Post editorial of October 16, 2008, endorsing a presidential candidate: (Author un-known..to me, at least)
The numbers, and comments in parentheses are mine...
“Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, (1)..rigid, dogmatic stupidity) with a nuanced grasp of complex issues (2)...without a clue about anything outside of his own 'make believe' world) and evident skill at conciliation (3)..knack for making bad things even worse) and consensus-building (4)..Oh yeah, right...a 'real' Uniter you got there). At home, we believe (5)...wish, or hope), he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation (6).. He doesn't have much respect for anything, or anyone,..besides himself). Abroad, the best evidence suggests (7)..The best evidence, would, and did, suggest the exact opposite) that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership (8) .. cough) and engagement (9)...total avoidance of anything remotely challenging, or unpleasant), continue the fight against terrorists (10)...Tea partiers?), and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values (11)..go out on a world wide apology tour, and poo-pooing any notion of American exceptional-ism) and interests (12)..'Greenie' interests). Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president (13..). Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.” (14)...Oh dear. is this yet,..another back-handed, 'clever' reference to "The one who shall not be named"?.. Yeah,..thought so.)
Here is my point: This dope was totally wrong at least 14 times in one short paragraph. Even a busted clock is right,.. twice a day.
Obama turned out to be exactly who I thought he'd be. Well, ok,..not exactly. He's actually performing several notches below my lowest expectations. ( Giving me a *Schaden-boner, betraying a never- sagging Tee-Pee.)
Obama is living an insulated life that appears to be entirely managed by the "Make A Wish Foundation". Yesterday, I was sorta surprised that he didn't crash the Master's ceremony and get ice cream, and a coveted "Green Jacket" ...for his golfing awesomeness, of course.
( May Yin, meet Yang,..and soon)
Question: Back to the author of this WAPO tripe. How does an idiot with the survival instincts of a fresh, pulsating, road-kill get to be an authority on our choices concerning character, and political expediency, while I,(..I had this poser pegged, dead on, back in 07') ..with superior instincts, am left to rot in anonymity on an occasional blog post?
(...Yes, that's tongue in cheek humor)
What an unfair, cruel world we live in. ; ^ )
For the convenience of the good folks at NB...
Submitted by Colt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:55pm.
Here is the original, unmolested version of the above paragraph. (You might want to have a barf-bag handy)
“Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.”
~ Some idiot at the Washington Post, October 16, 2008.
Colt for President!
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:19pm.
Excellent post.
Please Bill...
Submitted by Colt on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:45pm.
Let me point out the most important one of countless differences between (p)resident gilligan and myself. - I know that I'm not competent, or qualified.
But,... I can find my birth certificate.
Thanks for the kind comment of approval, though.
; ^)