Americans used to ask advice from bluestockings named Prudence. Now we seek guidance from an unbalanced guy named Savage. Only a barbarian would miss the symbolism. “We can learn to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation,” Dan Savage, a professional homosexual and amateur theologian, explained to high school journalists last month. The National High School Journalism Conference invited the advice columnist to speak to fledgling Fourth Estaters in Seattle. Savage told the teenagers about how enticing his husband looked in a speedo. He cursed. He claimed that Republicans want to stone brides who aren’t virgins. And he likened the Bible to animal excrement.
From the diaries. Dear Mister President: I stopped by your house the other day because I wanted to talk with you about what’s happened since we last met. I vividly remember the day you passed through my neighborhood during your 2008 campaign for President. I looked you in the eye and asked how your tax plan would affect a business I was going to buy. Ultimately, after describing a complicated tax scheme that seemed to require jumping through hoops to avoid being punished for success, you finished by saying that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. Surely you remember that, don’t you? More after the jump… In the time since we first met, a lot of folks have lost their job while you got the one for which you were applying. Funny how that worked out: millions of folks out here are living the nightmare of broken dreams, lost livelihoods, and crushing unemployment under your watch while you enjoy the perks of your new job being President of the greatest country on earth. It must be nice to get lavish vacations in exotic places for you and your family, playing unending rounds of golf at the world’s best country clubs while most of us Americans are just happy to be able to pay our bills. Your burdensome and punishing regulations made sure that job-creating small businesses suffer like never before. And yet, through it all, your friends, bundlers, and campaign contributors seem to be doing just fine. Thanks to your “spread the wealth” message, we’ve got people “occupying” legitimate businesses and industries, terrorizing the children of business leaders in their own homes, and calling for government control of everything and everybody. I thought you’d like to hear how all that is working out for us out here in the real world. Mister President, I think it’s time you and I continued our conversation. I tried early and late, but you weren’t home and I couldn’t find anyone to take a message. Perhaps you had a good score at the golf course today? Any luck getting more campaign donations? I’m sure that’s taking up a lot of your energy. By the way… you may have heard I am running for Congress in the OH-9 district. I’m going to win. Maybe you can stop by my office when you and your family visit DC and I’ll show you around my new digs. We can finish that chat then. Crossposted at Joe for Congress 2012
See the original post here:
Forward?
Consider what Barack Obama said after he was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. The newly inaugurated President stated : What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task. Well, as it turns out, President Obama’s definition of responsibility is quite different from that of most Americans. Because the only duty he has seized gladly over the past three and a quarter years is holding everyone other than himself responsible for the shortcomings of his policies. President Obama has blamed everyone from former President George W. Bush and House Republicans to the Arab Spring and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami for things not going exactly as planned. At this point, I am surprised he hasn’t got around to blaming his dog Bo, but his turn may soon come. The Obama 2012 campaign is underway and it’s a dog eat dog world out there. Or should I say a man eat dog world? Either way, Obama always seems to have a bone to pick with someone. However, with the emergence of the GSA and Secret Service scandals not to mention the Fast & Furious scandal at the Department of Justice and the Solyndra boondoggle, President Obama’s time in office can be characterized as an era of irresponsibility. Enter Mitt Romney. Say what you will about the former Massachusetts Governor. Sure he’s flip-flopped more than John Kerry, might not care much for the poor, and likes firing people as much as he likes mandates. But at least Mitt would mind the store. This is a man who dots his i ‘s, crosses his t ‘s and curves his u ‘s as meticulously as he combs his hair. Whatever his shortcomings, Romney comes across as a man who knows not only what he is doing but also what he needs to do. The same cannot be said for Obama. When we take the time to stack the résumés of Obama and Romney side-by-side we might very well come to the conclusion that Obama would be lucky to qualify for an entry level position in one of Romney’s companies. If America should choose to put its faith in Mitt this November then over the next four years we will told about how things are being cleaned up and turned around instead of being subjected to four more years of speeches from Obama telling us about the mess that was inherited from the previous administration and how frustrated he is that he doesn’t have the power to wipe it out with the single stroke of a pen. We will have gone from Obama the Orator to Romney the Responsible. To borrow a phrase from DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Romney is literally and figuratively a picture of sobriety. There is some question as to whether the strongest thing Romney drinks is Diet Coke or chocolate milk. I know Bill Maher kind of beat me to this, but I have a slightly different take from that of the “comedian” who donated $1 million to an Obama Super PAC. So let’s cue the flamenco guitar and images of a younger Romney in the French Alps with PowerPoint in tow. He can balance the federal budget on the tips of his fingers . He can alphabetize his tax deductions blindfolded . He has won gold medals for Olympic events that do not yet exist . Hairstylists go to him for grooming advice . He can tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 . He is the most boring man in the world . To which Romney, seated at an overcrowded table with his wife Ann, his five sons, their spouses and sixteen grandchildren, would reply, “I don’t always drink chocolate milk, but when I do I prefer Over the Moon . Stay thirsty my friends.” Mitt Romney might very well be the least hip presidential candidate since Nixon set foot on a beach. As such he would be well advised to refrain from asking “Who let the dogs out?” ever again (unless, of course, said dogs found themselves on the menu of the next White House State Dinner). Mitt should also probably resist the temptation to tell people that he listens to Jay-Z on his iPod (assuming he even has an iPod.) While Romney might not be able to carry a tune , let us remember that we’re voting for the next American President, not the next American Idol. So while Obama sings “Let’s Stay Together” with the Reverend Al Green, Romney is actually figuring a way to bring the nation together. Not very exciting perhaps. But 3 ¼ years of Obama plus the trillions added to our debt is more than enough drama for a lifetime. At least four years of boredom is exactly what this country needs.
See the original post here:
The Most Boring Man in the World
As recently reported by the British press , in the next James Bond film to be released in October, Skyfall , the suave secret agent to be played by Daniel Craig will not be sipping vodka martinis — he will be drinking beer, and one may also conclude he will not be all that suave. We do not yet know how Craig will ask for it, but given the dumbing down of the James Bond persona, it is not hard to imagine the words, “ice cold bottle of beer here” spoken at the gaming tables of Monte Carlo. The admirers of Bond are said to be outraged. For decades we have heard the words, “vodka martini, shaken not stirred,” spoken by the world’s urbane super spy, known almost everywhere as Bond, James Bond — as he is wont to introduce himself in a slightly menacing, condescending way. At home in the paneled offices of London’s intelligence service or MI6, the dignified casinos of the Riviera, the Space Shuttle, and on board the Orient Express streaking from Istanbul across Europe, Bond has been an icon for those with discriminating taste and for those who would like to have it. Whether it was Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan, the character Bond knew his fine wines and foie gras and how to conduct himself elegantly, whether in a bush suit or black tie. He could lecture the Bank of England on the deficiencies of their brandy, and advise M, the chief of MI6 on obscure flora found in the Amazon — in a patronizing manner. In the early Bond movies with Connery and Moore in particular, there was focus on the spy’s character and wry sense of humor, before the onslaught and distraction of high speed cameras and gadgetry. Later actors, especially Dalton, projected a more sensitive Bond — a Bond with listening skills — and Brosnan continued to enhance the image of all things dapper, the stiff upper lip, and good taste. But no more. Craig is a different kind of Bond — however still with much public appeal. His surliness and sometimes glowering manner speak to those in need of anger management. His musculature is suggestive of many hours spent in the gym, bench pressing several multiples of his body weight. His slightly spiked hair is suggestive of the coolness of a new generation, a new order of things. The grime and dried blood on his face convey a hands-on 007, a hard-charging executive of espionage — one who prefers substance over form and just wants to get the job done. The new Bond now played by Craig does not mind looking grungy and casual, and in this respect he is a certainly a man of the times. And while the earlier Bonds seemed to do their work for King and country, with pluck that was decidedly British, it is not yet clear exactly what motivates Craig in his role, other than the desire for a good dustup and a cold beer. It is possible that the commercial sponsors of Bond are shrewdly cognizant of globalization and its potential for profit. Imagine the rising demand for beer in Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so-called BRIC countries, as hundreds of millions of young men and women aspire to become secret agents, swigging down a well-chilled beer after completing a clandestine operation. Not surprisingly Heineken, the Dutch brewing company in collaboration with film sponsors, has weighed in , reportedly stating, “Bond is a perfect fit for us. He is the epitome of the man of the world.” Bond traditionalists may not be happy about the dilution of their brand, perhaps conceding that Daniel Craig still epitomizes something — but it is not worldliness. After all, a super sleuth with dirt and his own dried blood on his face cannot be doing everything right. But drinking beer need not be inconsistent with savoir-faire, as Jonathan Goldsmith, the Dos Equis man, shows us. Were Goldsmith cast as the next James Bond, we might hear him say, “Stay covert, my friends.”
Read more:
A Beer for Mister Bond
In the past week the presidential campaign has been hit by two events that many have termed silly. First there was the Hilary Rosen comment denigrating Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home and actually raise her children rather than elect to have a stranger do that. Second was the softer Seamus-on-the-roof story rolled out by the Obama campaign yesterday. Many, especially our own “smart set” , have criticized the attention these events have attracted as somehow taking away from the high minded policy discussion that is supposedly taking place. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since Mitt Romney has become the presumptive GOP nominee we’ve seen two broad lines of attack opened against him. The first is “Mitt is an out of touch rich guy.” The second is “Mitt is a Mormon and Mormons are very, very strange.” The closest they have come to making a policy attack on Romney is criticizing him as a conservative. How this is supposed to hurt him is anyone’s guess as the major knock on Romney during the primary was that he wasn’t conservative. Both the stories on Ann Romney and Seamus the dog are designed to build a meme portraying Romney as a plutocrat, some sort of latter day (nyuk nyuk) J. P. Morgan. For instance, the recent Paul Begala article in The Daily Beast refers to Romney as Thurston Howell III: And I mean elite. In Mitt Romney the Republicans have the apotheosis of wealth worship. Romney has amassed a fortune so vast he is expanding his $12 million beachfront mansion and installing an elevator … for his cars. For his cars, people. If you’re insanely rich, you might have an elevator in your mansion. But a lift for your Lexus? Keep in mind he’s running for office, for Pete’s sake. What’s he going to do if he wins? Use orphans as human golf tees? […] So far Romney has had a case of Marie Antoinette Syndrome. Every time he tries to connect with a middle- class voter he makes the Grey Poupon guy look like Joe Lunchbucket. He brags about his friends who own NASCAR teams and NFL franchises. He casually makes $10,000 bets. He says the $374,000 he made in speaking fees isn’t a lot of money. When a kid gives him an origami duck made out of a $1 bill, all he has in his pocket to replace it are hundreds. Romney apologists will say I’m taking this out of context. Baloney—or rather, Wagyu filet mignon. The context is that Romney truly is out of touch [my emphasis] , and middle-class voters may conclude that he is not on their side. To understand why this important one has to take a short side trip through recent presidential campaign and think about some notable moments. What do we remember about Gerald Ford? Sorta slow and sorta clumsy. Did his falling on the steps of Air Force One or hitting a woman spectator with a golf ball really say anything about his presidency? Absolutely not. To say they did not play a measurable role in his loss to Jimmy Carter is nonsense. Of course they did and today Ford is remembered as much for being sorta slow and sorta clumsy as he is for pardoning Richard Nixon. Fast forward to 1992. Two images stand out from that campaign. George H. W. Bush impatiently looking at his watch during a debate (he wasn’t the only one doing that, trust me) and George H. W. Bush seemingly amazed by a supermarket scanner. Did either of those accurately reflect Bush’s presidency which encompassed a successful end to the Cold War and successful war with Iraq? No. But they buttressed a meme developed by James Carville and Paul Begala as, wait for it, an out of touch rich guy who believed he was owed the presidency as a birthright. In that same campaign, the ridicule of Vice President Dan Quayle became an art form . In addition to the attacks on Romney’s wealth the left and the media, to the extent they aren’t the same, is gently rolling out the Mormons are strange attack. In this case, from Buzzfeed’s staff “Mormon expert” McKay Coppins an article called “Why Ann Stayed Home” you can see how cleverly the “Mormons are Strange” and the “War on Women” are linked. Ann Romney was already fully immersed in stay-at-home motherhood — raising five sons, ages six to 16, in her Belmont home — when Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson took to a pulpit on February 22, 1987 and delivered a definitive sermon on gender roles in the church titled, “To the Mothers of Zion.” His message to working moms: “Come home.” The religious dynamic of the Romneys’ Leave It To Beaver lifestyle has been largely lost on the partisans making hay out of the latest flare-up in the mommy wars, which was sparked by a Democratic strategist charging that Ann “has never actually worked a day in her life.” But while much of the debate has centered on class — with liberals casting full-time motherhood as a luxury for the rich, and conservatives hoping working-class women will identify with her — the fact is that even if Mitt were a middle-class schoolteacher, there’s a good chance Ann still would have foregone a career. That’s because for many Latter-day Saint women, staying at home to raise children is less a lifestyle choice than religious one — a divinely-appreciated sacrifice that brings with it blessings, empowerment, and spiritual prestige. Contrary to what a lot of folks on our side are saying these attacks are far more important to defend against than obsessing over Romney’s position on Afghanistan or the capital gains tax because this election is not going to be fought over issues and ideas. Were ideas and issues really important, Obama would be sitting alone in a by-the-hour motel room with a bottle of cheap bourbon and straight razor. He doesn’t have issues and he doesn’t have accomplishments so all that is left to him is to tear down Romney. If he can convince you that Romney is a cross between Scrooge McDuck and Moe Howard who adheres to a very strange set of religious beliefs then he wins. In both of these cases above we dodged the bullet. The rather stupid attack on Ann Romney’s decision that raising her kids was important has, in effect, made a mockery of the whole “War on Women” meme the Democrats have spent months developing. The Seamus story was short circuited by an own goal, Obama’s self-reverential memoir brags about him having eaten dog, and by Ann Romney’s candid discussion of the issue. Had we taken the advice of any number of pundits, by Election Day these incidents would have been as much a part of Romney’s public persona as President Bush and the supermarket scanner.
Read more here:
The Meme War We Must Win
