This captures it nicely.
I had a few conversations over the weekend with folks who lean ‘Publican during which and some of the usual themes emerged, e.g., Obama is a socialist and he loves big government. These folks expressed the opinion that government is essentially a pain in the ass — we agreed on that — and that the solution is to clean out the dusty archives filled with lifers and corrupt insider hacks, replacing them with people who dislike government and won’t hesitate to dismantle some of its worst machinery.
So for them, the big question, then, is Who of the four wingnuts competing for the ‘Pub top spot best fits the description of Outsider/Reformer, and, secondarily, Does that person have the best chance of defeating BHO in a general election?
I question the premise. Specifically, I wonder why anybody who claims to “despise big government” would spend so much time and money and work so hard to enter it, let alone lead it from the very top spot. If it’s not for the power or money, then what — its aphrodisiacal appeal? Are they masochists?
Second, when you’re hiring or contracting or selecting a specialist, do you gravitate toward people who despise what they do, or would you be more comfortable knowing that the one you brought in liked what he or she does? If your proctologist truly hated looking up asses and made it a point of saying so every time you dropped in for a poke, how confident in his services would you be? Ditto the pilot, the plumber, the accountant. Do the best artists, musicians, actors, and athletes hate every minute they’re working? Seems to me the ones who are best at their field at least like what they do, if not love it.
We Americans have proved ourselves pretty stupid about politics generally, demonstrated by sending the same corrupt imbeciles into office every election. The names change — sometimes — but the type doesn’t. This nonsense about sending “outsiders” to Washington to clean it up is hilariously naïve and delusional. Outsiders will be out-maneuvered by insiders every hour of the day, something they figure out real fast and start surrounding themselves with “insiders” of their own to help them navigate. Then, because they understand how important power and connections are, within a very short interval — like the blink of an eye — they become insiders themselves.
So what have sent to office — some knob whose On-The-Job training was done at record speed and is now a replica of the knob we voted out. Locally, the best example of this is Gov. Dickwithears.
By the way, nobody running for president in either party is an “outsider” by any stretch of the word. They’re all veterans of government, most at the national level, and all have deep and lasting connections to the lobbyists and major players that pump millions of dollars and exert gigantic influence on elected and appointed officials. Romney has surrounded himself with enough big-name ‘Pub insiders from previous administrations and lobbying firms to fill every chair in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Whenever Gingrinch refers to himself as an outsider — former Speaker of the House, ferchrissake, and a million-dollar a year lobbyist — I gag.
And on the subject of gagging:
First came Spreading Santorum, Dan Savage’s crude attempt at redefining Rick Santorum’s name on Google after Santorum said some crude things about gay people. Now comes Spreading Romney, a similar attempt to redefine Mitt Romney’s name on the Internet—as a verb, meaning “to defecate in terror.” The term is rocketing up the search engine charts, reports Search Engine Land. Type “Romney” and it appears in the ninth slot on Google … and climbing. — Newser
This, too, is a positive development in an election year. The pleasant definition recalls the not-as-famous-as-it-should-be saga of Mittens taking the family on a 12 hour trip with their Golden Retriever strapped in a carrier on the roof of the station wagon. Imagine how that dog felt — and then think about your own sorry ass if you let this man take you on a ride for four years. Bark. Whimper. Growl.