The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Romney is not even not dumb.

    Romney isn't that dumb, or not dumb enough to launch a dumb riff about airplane windows not going up and down when he's standing right in front of his wife who has just had a near death experience on a smoke filled jet at thirty thousand feet. That's not even not dumb, but worse. Notice she was not looking at him and she was definitely not even not smiling. I hope Mitt wasn't dumb enough to try to collect on his marriage benefits that night.

    So what's Romney---the world's walking definition of a smart business guy---trying to achieve by appearing to be dumb and not even dumb, but beyond our consciousness of dumb, a kind of Kenyan dumb---inhabiting an alterative reality beyond the dumb of our own shores?  

    The truth is that Romney is luring Obama into a state of over-confidence before their first debate next week---which is not necessarily a dumb strategy. Mistaking Romney as having gone dumb-rogue, Obama will have a hard time landing a punch on what in reality is a smart shape-shifting opponent.

    The Romney-Netanyahu-CNN-Fox News-Republican Congress coalition to undermine Obama's foreign policy credentials before the second debate set aside, this Presidential debate will be all about strategy and devastating real-time character attacks which transform national consciousness in the space of a few seconds---possibly making the balance of the campaign immaterial. After lulling Obama and all of America to sleep for the first fifteen minutes of the debate, Romney will catapult off the ropes and spring at Obama with deadly accuracy, eyes ablaze, fingers pointing, weight shifting. Romney will land a succession of punches which will absolutely dumbfound Obama and will change the race from dead-even to a surprising victory for Romney in November. For example:

    "Mr. President, I know Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is my friend. And believe me, you're no Bill Clinton.I might not have beaten Bill Clinton because he was successful, but I'm going to beat you because you're Barack Obama and you've failed."

    Obama will fall back on his heels, stunned. He will have been schooled in one-liners and though semi-conscious he will be able to counter with, "There you go again, Mitt." That response would not even not depress me, but way more.

    Aside from Romney's automatic airplane windows un-joke, Romney has been acting dumb out on his road trip in Ohio. I was born in Ohio and believe me, Buckeyes aren't that dumb. In Vandalia, Romney piteously tried to change a "Ryan" rant to a "Romney-Ryan" chant. I listened carefully but no Buckeyes joined in.

    In Toledo, Romney shape-shifted to using "Romneycare" as his chief credential in the "empathy" department. No Buckeyes were dumb enough to buy such a sudden claim of secular humanism but that isn't the point. The point is to confuse Obama before the debates. There's no telling what Romney will pull during the debates. He could come dressed as Nelson Mandela for all we know. And as long as Romney throws Obama off balance, the election will be over. Buckeyes and everyone else will join the landslide of Republican values voters. 

    In the upcoming debate, clever strategy will reclaim its rightful heritage of game-changing prowess, just like in the Reagan era, And the Playing Dumb Romney Strategy will replace the folk lore of Nixon's sweat or Reagan's one-liner as the ultimate example of debate game-changed-ness, and possibly obviate the deadening discourse of every possible, conceivable, trite, common wisdom, old hat, spurious, banal, insouciant, sophomoric, over-used, follow-the-leader, conventional-wisdom takes on the debate---the foregoing not to exclude the 100% chance of any given pundit on planet earth offering an opinion when asked on whether debate expectations are being raised or lowered by this or that faction. Christ on a cross, spare me!

    In conclusion, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Speculation on the upcoming debates is not even not insufferable.  

      

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    In the words of Mitt Romney, "I'll bet you $10,000.00"


    And don't forget to list your winnings on your tax return.


    I'll file an amended return when no one is looking. surprise


    Oh Oxy at his best: you've got me excited about the debates, imagining all kinds of fun stuff (some of it no doubt dumb...)

    Only one criticism: somewhere in there you could have segued into how being dumb could be an intentional expression of solidarity with what he labeled as the dumb half of the American public.

    On the airplane thing, I waz thinking how he may have lost the votes of the entire Secret Service with that one, them thinking, oh boy, we wouldn't be able to let this one alone for a single second; how did he manage to have so many children survive to adulthood?


    Monday:

    When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem.

    Thursday:

    The Flight Attendants Union Coalition, representing 100,000 Flight Attendants at carriers across the country, today announced their endorsement of President Barack Obama. The coalition — AFA-CWA, TWU, APFA, Teamsters and IAMAW — is calling on its members to set their flying schedules to maximize their time volunteering for the Obama-Biden ticket.

    Fueling still more Democratic over-confidence. The ruse is working!


    Hah!


     

    Yes, the Democrat over-confidence worry is a good one.  Gotta find something.  

    Although in my experience the phrase "Democratic over-confidence" is pretty much an oxymoron.  (Which seems an especially apt word to use in this thread, given its author, no?)  But then again, if Democrats are over-confident about not being over-confident, isn't that reason enough to worry?

    The Democrats I know are pretty much chronic worriers.  Hard to see why that might be, given the all but complete rout and takeover of power and the terms of public debate by the marauding, troglodyte right, coinciding with the re-creation of oligarchy and plutocracy in this country over the past 30 years or so.  But I digress.   

    For a GOP presidential candidate/ticket just to be able to generate the kind of snark and fun we've seen around here lately--well, that's some pretty heavy duty clown territory the Mittster has ventured into.  Because Democrats sometimes have trouble doing fun, it being considered poor form and all while the country and the planet are in hell or en route.  


    The brilliant dumbness of the line about rolling down the airplane's windows is that it contains a second, even dumber thought hidden in it; the assumption that letting in more oxygen is the way to put out a fire.  Dumb like a fox indeed.


    Possibly you have not misunderestimated Romney but who can really say for sure.  What I mean to say is that I know I understand what I think you said.  I just not sure what I read is what you meant.*

    Whenever anyone praises Romney for his business acumen and hedge fund success, I remember two adages learned from my first stockbroker boss:

    • It's not what you know, it's who you know.
    • Never confuse brains with a bull market.

     

    *Rewording of another favorite adage:

    I know you understand what you think I said.  I just not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

     


    Absolutely brutal comedic edit of Romney's new ad in which he talks directly to camera with  "I feel your pain" words, by Jimmy Kimmel Live, last night:

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/405809

     


    Good one--got me laughing.  And that was before the banner that flashed across my screen letting me know that the clip was brought to me by Chase Freedom. 


    the clip was brought to me by Chase Freedom

    Whoa sounds like the micro-targeting advertising thingie still has some major glitches at Hulu? heewink


    ...Justin Time, one might add.


    Well you have me laughing.

    And I wrote a few times before that Mitt will note at some point:

    There ya go again.

    As if that stupid line actually put B actor in the White House!

     


    I'm asking everyone who has already made up their minds about their vote to boycott the debate and stop feeding the media political infotainment machine.


    Good one, Oxy.  I do believe Mitt will be channeling Reagan in the debates.  It'll be simple sentences with a few memorable soundbites (like, yes, "there you go again"), but no more $10,000 bets or "I know many team owners" or dumb stuff like that.

    He'll be just dumb enough but not so dumb he turns everybody off.  He'll try for Will Rogers dumb, which is what Reagan tried for--and won.

    It could happen.


    I'm beginning to think that Willard has decided he doesn't want to be President after all, but can't figure out how to get out of it other than to tank the campaign.

    I suppose you could be right that he's doin' a "rope-a-dope," but I don't know. Can you fake the kind of lunacy that makes you get up in front of a crowd and re-do the chant because you aren't the center of attention?

    I'm not going to get cocky because I know 40 days is a lifetime in politics, but I just don't see how this clown wins.


    Stilli, 

    I've been thinking for quite awhile that he really doesn't want to be POTUS.  I'm convinced his candidacy is a result of a combination of factors.   As has been said by many, with the exception of Huntsman, he was the 'best' the GOP had to offer. But only because any of a higher caliber, like J. Bush and others, were not going to run against President Obama for a variety of reasons.

    That said, considering the Koch's and their cohorts, I am worried about what lengths they will go to in order to salvage their investment and save all the billions in taxes they will 'lose' in O's second term.

    Actually, I bet the McCain/Palin ticket is looking pretty good to those boys about now.

    However the question remains, is Romney really this stupid or 'dumb like a fox'?

     


    So it's a titanic unspoken battle of wills (can't really say battle of wits) playing out between the Koch brothers' efforts to buy him the White House ("Get in there, Mitt!!!  You can do it!  We need you in there, brother!  You owe this to your father and all of us in the wealth-producing class!"), versus Willard's efforts to self-destruct so he doesn't have to take this stinkin' job ("Hell no, I won't go!" and "Who do those Koch brothers think they are, trying to force me to take a job I don't want?  Although, come to think of it, my expertise is in forcing people who do want jobs to not have them.  So maybe I'm toast on this.")


    There are two reasons to be concerned about the amount of money the Kochs et al. are spending on this election:

    1. The effect it might actually have on the election
    2. What it says about the confidence of those willing to spend their own money on the election

    With regards to that second point, who would be willing to spend that amount of money on a campaign unless they thought there was at least a 30% chance of winning? (Nate Silver currently has the chances of Romney winning pegged at 16%.) In fact, it's hard to know what effect money does have on elections because it's hard to separate cause and effect. Are people willing to spend more money on a winning candidate, or did the candidate win because people spent more money on him? And, of course, there are the companies that donate to both parties. (Suggesting to me that they're more interested in buying influence than in influencing elections.)

    So, given the 16% figure, why do Koch et al. still think their money is being spent wisely? Maybe they've got an ace up their sleeve. E.g., control of some voting stations, etc.

    *shiver*


    Far be it from me to give too much credit to the Koch brothers.  But if they (in recent weeks as Romney continues to slip slide away on the road to political oblivion, if not ignominy) conclude Romney will lose but that how much he loses by affects the chances of the House flipping, they might conclude that money spent on Romney, as well as more directly on House races, is well worth it to try to keep that from happening.  All they have to do is keep the House and they can successfully play defense against any legislation they don't want.  


    The Koch's and others of their ilk know exactly who and what they are 'buying' - a potential POTUS who is their toady and puppet (or beyotch if you prefer). 

    The only two things that Mitt appears to pay homage to, IMO, is his church and those who have more money and perceived power than he does.  (Ann is out of the equation since he sees her as an extension of himself.) 

    Within the grasp of this group, if Romney is elected, is not only access to the ultimate 'boardroom', but the surety that they will not need to surrender billions to the IRS and their corporate interests will not suffer from any legislative impediments.

    They are not going to stop doubling down as long as there is any chance they can win their wager.

     

     


    I keep going back to Norquist's comment about only needing a candidate with enough digits to sign the legislation the house sends him.

    He certainly fits that bill.