I Am Totally Stealing This!!!

 . . . from Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly.


Apparently, while up in New Hampshire today, Herman Cain attempted to defend his foreign policy incoherence by telling an AP reporter that knowing every detail isn't important, adding:  "We need a leader, not a reader."

To which I can only reply, "The Simpsons Did it First!":

Awesome!

The Tribalism that Sustains Herman Cain

Charlie Pierce had a brief post up over at Esquire on Friday discussing the Republican Party's ongoing efforts to crush the labor movement.

Remember when all the Tea Party apologists were telling us that it was all about the anger of middle-class folks over the deficit and  federal spending, and about how they were just as mad at Democrats as they were at Republicans?

See, here's the thing. The first part was complete bullshit and the second part was a dodge. They may well have been equally upset at Democrats as they were at Republicans, but they were not as mad at conservatives as they were at liberals. That, by the way, makes all the difference, because whereas they were angry at Republicans because they were not conservative enough, they were angry at Democrats for existing at all because they were liberals, and "liberal" is defined by these people as "anyone and anything we don't like." The Tea Party may not have been strictly partisan, but it was undeniably tribal. (emphasis added)

That's a good word, "tribalism," and it nicely encapsulates what I and a lot of other DFHs have been saying about the Republic Party for some time now:  other than cutting taxes for the rich, the only thing that defines the GOP is its desire to piss off Liberals as much as possible.

They do not evince a desire to enact policy so much as they demonstrate an overwhelming need to crush their political opponents.  And it doesn't even matter if their political opponents agree with them.  If Democrats adopt the Republican position that carbon emissions should be limited under a "cap and trade" program, then  Republicans will argue against that position.  If Democrats adopt the Republican position that health insurance costs can be lowered by mandating that everybody purchase health insurance, Republicans will argue against that position. The modern GOP views politics as little more than "us" versus "them," and they are prepared to define themselves solely in opposition to whatever their political opponents want.  Modern Republicans are "derivative ideologues," i.e., they vote ideologically, but their ideology depends not on what they believe but on what others believe.

I think this same kind of political tribalism goes a long way toward explaining why Herman Cain has not fallen very far in the Republican polls, despite the fact it has now been about 2 weeks since the first allegations of sexual harassment (even sexual assault!) have been brought forth.  I think that - for a very large swathe of the Republican Party - they are more than happy to stick with a candidate who has been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct if only because it provides them another opportunity to say Suck It! to the "liberal media" and the "politically correct crowd" who would dare to suggest that someone with Cain's background might not be the best choice for a presidential candidate.

Which - hey! - so far as I am concerned, that's fine with me.  The longer Cain stays in the race and keeps the party from coalescing around Romney, which I am still convinced ultimately will happen, the happier I'll be.  If the Republicans want to cut off their nose to spite the Liberals' face, I'm absolutely A-OK with that.

They had BETTER Nominate Romney

. . . because I don’t think they’d actually be able to bear any of their “Romney-alternative” candidates.

Lord knows I’m not the first person to have looked at Romney’s polling among the Republican faithful only to conclude that the GOP really, really, really doesn’t want to nominate a French-speaking, (former?) pro-choice, (former?) gay rights supporting, (former?) Reagan-distancing, (former?) tax-raising, (forever!) Godfather of Health Care Reform, magic-underpants wearing Mormon named Willard to be their candidate for President of the United States.

I mean, Willard started this race the ostensible front-runner, and yet his polling never, ever has been able to break out of the 23 – 25% range with Republicans.  They’re just not that into him.  And so numerous candidates have been presented as the Willard alternative, and after each one has flamed out an equally or even more ludicrous candidate has then assumed the anti-Willard pole position.  The Republicans are quite obviously desperate to find someone – anyone – other than Willard to put up against Obama next November, but none will do.

And with Herman Cain they are now scraping the very bottom of the barrel.

New Series: The Truths that Dare Not Speak Their Names

“Political correctness” had its heyday back in the late 1980’s/early 90’s.  People still refer to it, of course, but as an actual movement – the kind that briefly was establishing speech codes across America’s college campuses – its sun has set.

Except, curiously and in a weird kind of way, in politics.  I don’t know why it is, but in American politics – especially American presidential politics – a strange kind of political correctness attaches to both parties, to both parties’ supporters, and to both parties’ supporting pundits, and it prohibits people saying flat out some things that everybody knows to be true but about which we are all supposed to pretend we are completely unaware.

Here are two examples of truths that everybody recognizes, but nobody says:

Rick Perry's Debate Debut: Handicapping the Candidates

I watched the debate via Internet, but I assume the sound quality was the same for those watching on the TeeVee – boy!  did that suck!  The amount of reverb present whenever anyone was talking gave me a headache and sometimes made it next to impossible to figure out what was being said.  I don’t know if that was a problem with the audio equipment or somehow resulted from the fact the debate appeared to have been held in an airplane hangar, but it was extremely annoying.  Almost as annoying as the hagiographic video they ran of St. Ronald Reagan and his missus.

As for the GOP base audience, I took notes of the things to which they seemed to react/applaud.  These included:

--Newt Gingrich’s charge that the “liberal media,” acting as the debate’s moderators, were “carrying water for Obama”;

--Michele Bachmann’s claim that the Affordable Care Act constitutes “socialized medicine”;

--Jon Huntsman’s charge that Obama should “get out from behind a teleprompter;”

--Santorum’s announced goal of cutting way back on food stamps and housing assistance; and

--Rick Perry’s assertion that Social Security was “a monstrous lie” that “won’t be there” for our children. 

But by far, what drew the loudest and longest applause was Brian Williams attempt to ask Rick Perry about the record number of people he has executed as Governor of Texas.  The really chilling thing about this applause is that it started before Williams could even finish setting up the question.  He got as far as saying “Governor Perry, you’ve presided over the executions of the largest number of people of any modern governor –” when the audience broke into sustained and spontaneous applause.  They were applauding Perry for killing a lot of people.  If you wanted evidence of the bloodthirsty nature of the GOP base . . . There it is.

Individual assessments of each candidate's performance are below the fold.

Thoughts on the Seven Dwarfs Debate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.