Heroes & Villains

The recent frenzied search for a Republican Messiah has reached the very bottom of the barrel, only to reveal that it's a Messiah-free barrel (Jindal: no style; Rush: no substance . . . and most likely no soul). I honestly don't think there's any use in continuing the search. What are they hoping to find, the next Ronald Reagan? I've got news for the GOP: Ronald Reagan was an aberration.

The Republican Party doesn't thrive on its heroes. Can anyone name a single Republican superstar in the last 20 years? Rudy? W? H. W.? Rush? Newt? Ah-nold? If politics were American Idol, all of these guys would rank somewhere between William Hung and Bucky Covington (with nary a Sanjaya in the bunch). But that's okay. Superstars don't make good conservatives. Rallying dreams and stirring up hopes just isn't . . . Republican.

The superstar is primarily, though not exclusively (see Reagan), the Democrats' shtick. Obama. Bill. Hillary. Pick a Kennedy . . . any Kennedy. Somehow Al Gore, the Human Yawn, even managed to achieve superstar status in defeat, no less. The Democrats live in Hollywood, where anybody has a shot at worldwide fame. The Republicans live on Wall Street, where even the most successful studs amount to little more than rich nobodies. The most famous Republicans enter the conversation when they screw up, speak up, or otherwise stir up some controversy. The hotshot Dems never seem to leave the conversation. (Can we really go a week without Bill giving the world a coy wink from just below some major headline just to let us all know he's still relevant?)

Whereas the Democrats thrive on personality (and cozy notions like hope, compassion, and justice), the Republicans deal in a currency of fear. Let's be honest, they're more concerned about what we should not do and what we can't let happen. Let's not screw up. Let's not let democracy die. Don't let the terrorists--or the socialists--win. They don't need a hero, no sir. The Republicans need an enemy they can believe in.

Thank God for the Soviets. They kept the GOP united and strong for the better part of a century. Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah teamed up to launch Reagan into unprecedented Republican stardom. Roe v. Wade cemented the Republican Party's place as the only evangelical option. Saddam Hussein gave two Bushes more than their fair share of the limelight. Heck, the fear of Osama bin Laden dealt W the win over Kerry when simple statistics show that Bush probably received votes from a few million people who thought he was doing a bad job as president (I know he got at least one). And if Rush Limbaugh were to be honest (which would require elephantine doses of narcotics) he would tell you that he owes his entire career to the Clinton presidency . . . and he must also credit his recent resurgence in infamy to the rise of Obama. (Honestly, other than the revelation of his addiction and hearing loss, I can't remember hearing a single thing about his political views during the Bush years. . . . I suppose there was the whole feud with Al Franken, but I always considered that to be more of a suppressed homo-erotic version of a David Addison/Maddie Hayes will-they or won't-they dramedy--I mean, seriously guys, get a room.)

Forget the myth of finding the next great Republican leader. What the Republicans really need is a quality enemy, and they don't really have one. Right now it's Obama's brand of socialism, a truly pathetic foil. Wishing doom upon his economic policies is the political equivalent of cheering for Osama's escape during the Bush years (which, if the Dems did, they did so privately). This is precisely why Limbaugh is praying for failure. For him and his party to succeed, he needs some truly juicy object of hatred and fear to arise from the liberal ooze. 

My advice: don't wish for it to come from Obama. Sit back, smile, and moderately applaud as his supporters sing "Obama Bless America" on the steps of Congress. Give the Dems this moment, Republicans, and you'll come off looking like gracious losers, team players, and unified patriots. Meanwhile, set your sights on Congress. Good lord, they're all so inept, you really shouldn't have to look hard to find someone doing something awful. Don't waste your time battling someone viewed as a Messiah. It's much easier to attack a Judas.

We Agree That They're Clueless

Coates is a bit more charitable in his analysis than me: "It's interesting that so many of their most dominant voices of the GOP (Steele, Gingrich, Limbaugh) have either never won an election, or haven't won in a decade." 

Who's the Wizard Now?

I recently posited that the GOP was trying to resemble the cast of "30 Rock." It turns out that the Republicans are using a far worse strategy: letting James Carville dictate their public image. Essentially, Carville and team did polling last fall that revealed that Rush Limbaugh has lower popularity ratings than even Jeremiah Wright. (It should go without saying that this means his popularity is way lower than President Obama--some 40 points lower.) It didn't take the Ragin' Cajun long to realize that identifying the GOP with El Rushbo would further sink the Republicans in popular opinion. 

Rush has been all too happy to play along. He has depicted himself as the counterpoint to Obama, fomented at CPAC, and played the part of party whip, lashing out at any Republican who dares to challenge him. Rush wins, the Democrats win, and the media wins. Who loses? The GOP. 

The recent kerfuffle with Michael Steele is just the latest in a months-long parade of Republican leaders lining up to apologize for Rush: Phil Gingrey, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, and now Steele. Now, if the Mighty Rush had the sort of popularity that resulted in 50% + approval ratings and the ability to deliver enough votes to win elections, this groveling might make sense. But he doesn't. The Democrats know this. Why don't the Republicans? 

The Republicans are playing all the parts of The Scarecrow with no brain, the Tin Man with no heart, and the Lion with no courage. They haven't seen that the Wizard of Oz is just a large man behind a microphone.

I'm waiting for the GOP to Grow-O-Pair and confront the elephant in the room: Limbaugh is popular with the millions who listen to his radio program, and deeply unpopular with the tens of millions who don't. If Republicans want to win any elections in the next 2-8 years, following Rush will only lead to the party shrinking smaller than the tiniest Munchkin.

Republicans try "30 Rock" Strategy

I've been trying to figure out what grand strategy the Republicans are using to win the hearts and minds of America. I think I've got it: They are trying to be the "30 Rock" political party. 

We have Tina Fey:

We have Tracy Morgan: 

 

And we have Kenneth the Page: 

Don't tell Alec Baldwin, but it seems that the Republicans have a mad crush on his show. They are embracing the "bizarre, absurdist" comedy, which industry insiders love but which fails to attract viewers. The Republicans seem not to realize that winning a shelf full of awards for comedic brilliance doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is paying attention to you (see: "Arrested Development").

Maybe the Republicans should embrace a new strategy based on "The Office." 

   

Oh wait. I guess they already tried that . . . 

The Economy IS Awesome

Former President Bill Clinton urged Barack Obama to speak positively about the economy, no matter what every economic indicator seems to point to. Be cheery, Barack, and let's see where the sunshine gets us!

Clinton also encouraged President Obama to "play it free and loose with the meaning of the verb to be." For example: There is no economic crisis with our country.

Yeah . . . that approach works out great.

Rock of Love v. The View--Death Is Not an Option

Recently the television gabfest show The View came up in a conversation with a friend. Supposedly I am the target demographic for this show--female, at home most mornings, opinionated--and yet I find this one of the most obnoxious shows on television.

In fact, I think The View is more revolting than, say Rock of Love. (I am slightly embarrassed to A) know what that show is and B) say that I've seen it.) In case you have been privileged enough to never hear of or see Rock of Love, it's a reality show in which several dozen women, of questionable intelligence and frequently surgically altered, compete for the affections of Bret Michaels, former member of the 80's band Poison. Hijinks ensue.

So why would I find a show featuring conversation between 5 women of relative intelligence more obnoxious than a show featuring 25 women who seemingly want to win the heart of a guy who's a walking STD?

Because The View is supposed to represent me. On Rock of Love, I can feel pity or disgust or shock for the people on the show, knowing that none of them in least represents me. But on The View, I am usually annoyed more by the nature of the conversation and the people who are supposedly like me than the ones who aren't. And that's extremely unpleasant television.

Covenant School Would Have Been Ashamed

You gotta give a giant hand to Rod Blagojevich. Sure, he was ousted from the governor's mansion in humiliating fashion, but you have to admire the way he continued to compete right up to the very end.

On the other hand, how ashamed should the Illinois senate be? Running up the vote to 59-0? That's unconscionable. Their coach should be fired.