Sunday, November 11, 2012

...or can reading editorials make you wonder who actually won the election?

Gloating is unseemly and undignified. We here at isitjustme would never lower ourselves to revel in the misfortune of others. Raising our hands to our nose and wiggling our fingers at a vanquished opponent is not our style. Mono-digital salutes or (shudder!) mooning a fallen adversary is not the cut of our jib. The extended hand of  good fellowship and the acknowledgement of a contest well played will always be our preferred mode of operation. In any event there is one fact upon which both sides can agree: no one gives a shit how Florida went.

That said, we can hardly be faulted for the slight tingle one feels as you watch your defeated adversary begin to contemplate the miscalculations and blunders that caused him to finish second in a two-person contest. Ah schadenfreude! Schadenfreude is a German word for taking pleasure in the pain of others. Is anyone surprised that the Germans have a word for this? So it was with a happy heart that I flipped to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that I might bask in that dish best served cold.  I was however, doomed to disappointment. Not only was there no recrimination, no  soul-searching and no hand wringing but, based upon what I read, I was not even sure who had won.

I began with Fred Barnes, a smart savvy Conservative journalist and political pundit whose primary claim to fame is that he predicted the election of John McCain for president in 2008. Polls and prognosticators be damned, Fred just had a feeling. Anyway, Mr. Barnes' take on the events of Nov 6 were echoed in most of what I read from Paul Gigot, guru of the Journal's edit page, Dan Henninger, political columnist and even-handed observer and Karl Rove, former GWB Rasputin and current sycophant on Fox News. (I'm surprised Rove had time to write the column. I imagined he was still in the Fox newsroom explaining to Chris Wallace why it was still too early to call Ohio for Obama.)

Barnes and Co. mostly began by congratulating President Obama for running one of the slickest, nastiest, unprincipled and ruthless campaigns this side of Vladimir Putin. This from the gang that maligned John Kerry for his military service, intimating he bought his purple hearts at Target. The Democrats were praised for painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch elitist with too much wealth and too little charm or empathy. Gee, I don't know why the Democrats bothered. Romney was doing a marvelous job of painting that picture all on his own. (When your wife has to go on television and tell the world you're funny, you're probably not.)  

Barnes went on to say that this election proved nothing and left us exactly where we were before. That's not entirely true. We learned that the American people are a tad smarter that we thought. They grasped the distinction between job-creator and corporate shark. They showed an astute understanding of candidates who put people over profit. They rejected a candidate who, in an attempt to stand for everything, stood for nothing. Mitt Romney's religion never became an issue but his beliefs were there for all to see.

George Will in the Washington Post said that the Republicans were victims of demography. I couldn't agree more but regardless of what Jan Brewer of Arizona says all those Latinos didn't just arrive on Nov 6th. The issue isn't whether minorities are coddled by Democrats. It's that they are constantly denigrated by Republicans. "Hey gringo, you don't have to kiss my ass, just stop kicking it."

Naturally, most of the writers I read were eager to cast aspersions on everyone but their candidate.  It was the New York Times' fault. It was Hurricane Sandy. It was that hotel employee in S. Florida who deceitfully taped Gov. Romney reminding his rich backers about the difference between "us" and "them". It was Romney's dog for complaining to The Huffington Post about his travel accommodations on a vacation. Ungrateful cur. It was Ann Romney's horse for finishing poorly at the Olympics.

Why is no one on the Right saying the obvious: it's impossible to present yourself as a moderate in Massachusetts, a neocon nut-job in a primary and a moderate in a general election. Don't take my word for it. Ask the small army of  too-liberal Democrats who ran against Nixon, Reagan, and      Bush 41. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats got the message. The tea party doesn't need to be abolished (good luck with that) they need to be restrained.

OK enough of this. The election is over and we can now go back to gridlock in Congress. As for me, I'm on my way out to buy a copy of The Weekly Standard. Maybe I'll moon the RNC on the way home.








No comments: