Friday, April 15, 2011

Dept. of No Surprise: Rodeo Clowns Division

"Donald Trump is a joke." That's what political analyst Charlie Cook says in The Atlantic. He is shocked and appalled that the short-fingered vulgarian is tied for first in polls of Republican voters. Needless to say, we agree with Crist's shock. We have been referring to most of the current crop of would-be-candidates as rodeo clowns. They're the entertainment that makes the crowd laugh while the serious contenders are bracing for the bullride.

Cook also likes the clown image, suggesting that rather than "send in the clowns," the intellectually serious GOP voters must be humming a song about getting rid of them. That, of course, assumes that any serious GOP voters remain in the party. Cook's best line:
Anyone assuming that the reality-show host's interest in running for president is just another one of his publicity stunts would not likely be wrong. But what does it say about the Republican Party or, for that matter, the American people that this guy gets a second glance? Could a Jersey Shore personality be far behind? Legitimate Republican candidates have to wonder whether they'll be sharing a stage in the early debates with characters straight out of the bar scene in Star Wars.
Okay, we're just going to say what we're all thinking: Sarah Palin in a Princess Leia slave outfit, and Newt as Jabba the Hutt. You know the campaign poster is coming, don't you?


Pastor Joelle said...

Yea but I thought Ronald Reagan was a joke and nobody would ever vote for him.

This country can surprise. And that's not always good.

Father Anonymous said...

'Sfunny. One minute ago -- one minute -- my wife and I were talking about that very thing, in this very context. You had left the comment 49 minutes earlier.

You're right, of course. I thought that about Reagan, too. And I remember saying with such confidence that nobody could screw up a first term as badly as GW Bush had and have any legitimate shot at a second. Shows what I know about politics, or people.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you're both socially isolated and Mainline Protestantism is essentially NPR at prayer.
Which says a lot about its ability to reach beyond the middle class, middle aged and middle brow and the left of center.
You and the fundies are, in so many ways, mirror images of each other. And neither of you will admit it. Pitiful. But typical for religious people.

Anonymous said...

You and the fundies are mirror images of each other, as relentlessly unpredictable as a broken metronome.
You take identical positions within your church; the Missouri Synod people take their mirror image.
You've become NPR at prayer and you're amazed and offended when people point out that you can't be both Mainline and Progressive; either you have a mass base or you act like an elite leading the pitiful masses along for their own good.
You've been trying to have it both ways for so long you've actually come to believe the political nonsense you peddle: that you represent the majority of people in the US while remaining "prophetic" and "marginalized" and "on the edge with the persecuted Savior".
Even for religion, this is stupid.

Father Anonymous said...

You are mistaken. Whining, and mistaken. What surprises and annoys many of us in the so-called "mainline" churches is that people don't realize you can be part of one and NOT be progressive. Which you can, and many people do -- especially among Lutherans and Presbyterians. Unlike certain churches (generally the large independent ones, although lately Roman Catholicism has been getting back into the game), the major Protestant churches make a point of accepting different political views as legitimate expressions of a common faith.

Sure, some of our denominational leaderships suffer from a captivity to Boomer-style bien pensant leftism. But, less than you might think. Honestly, the Scaife foundation and its children have done a great job of making it look worse than it is.

And anybody who reads this blog as closely as you do should realize that my own politics are not, by any means, those of either party, at least in its extremes.

In my habitual social set -- New Yorkers, including especially Roman Catholics, Jews and atheists -- I have typically stood out as an outspoken conservative. As I've said, both here and elsewhere, I am 95% loyal to the party in which I was raised -- Upstate Rockefeller Republicanism. The problem is that my party moved on long ago, and so the most memorable recent exponent of my own basically centrist, fiscally-conservative, pro-government, pro-military political philosophy was Bill Clinton.