Oh no! Has Indiana's reputation for "Hoosier hospitality" been tarnished?

Great Moments in Hoosier History: Americans learned the meaning of Hoosier tolerance when America's Foremost Hoosier, Vice President Dan Quayle, publicly jumped ugly on 12-year-old New Jersey schoolkid William Figueroa for spelling "potato" correctly.


"I just don't like that they say we're intolerant. Because that's not who we are."

-- Martinsville (Indiana) bakery owner Michelle Crafton,
quoted by the NYT's Richard Fausset in "Indiana
Residents Rue Damage to State's Welcoming Reputation"

by Ken

Well, boo-hoo, Michelle.

Here's the opening of Richard Fausset's NYT report from the Hoosier State, "Indiana Residents Rue Damage to State's Welcoming Reputation":

MARTINSVILLE, Ind. — Michelle Crafton, the owner of a tiny bakery in this struggling town 30 miles south of Indianapolis, is not sure what she would do if asked to cater a same-sex wedding.

Ms. Crafton, 42, is a churchgoing Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin. But she also has a gay cousin — “I’ve loved him ever since he was a kid,” she said — and if she did say no to a gay couple, she would struggle over a polite way to tell them.

As the debate over a law promoted as defending religious freedom but criticized as anti-gay convulsed Indiana last week, Ms. Crafton might be excused for also being unclear about whether it would give her the legal right to refuse such service. She and other supporters of the law had hoped that it would.

But on Thursday, after an outcry from business leaders, Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, signed a revised version clarifying that the law could not be used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

If Ms. Crafton was sure of one thing, it was that all of the national attention had given Indiana a black eye.

“I just don’t like that they say we’re intolerant,” she said Thursday from behind a counter stocked with pastel Easter cookies and red velvet cupcakes. “Because that’s not who we are.”

Ah, well, thanks for clearing that up, Michelle! Okay, well, she has a bit more clarifying to offer:

Ms. Crafton said she supported gay couples’ right to have their relationships recognized under the law. And despite her religious reservations, she said she might cater a same-sex wedding if she felt comfortable with the couple.

“It comes down to the people,” she said.

She said she would never turn away gay customers who walked into her store, unless they were excessively rude. But that, she said, applied to everyone.

There you go: It comes down to the people. As long as they aren't "excessively rude," they can darned well spend their money in Michelle's store. Tell me that isn't welcoming! This must be what's meant by "Hoosier hospitality."

Then there's Pentecostal Christian café owner Ryan Colwell, 41, also in Martinsville, who huddled with his pastor "to work out a plan if he was ever asked to cater a same-sex wedding, which he feels his faith precludes him from condoning." You'll be thrilled to learn that they worked it out:

“I would cater a gay wedding,” he said, but only if he could drop the food off “and leave, and not have to stay and observe.”

Why any same-sex couple would want to have a proud homo-hater present, or for that matter to avail themselves of his services, escapes me, but I guess it's a matter of principle. And our Ryan isn't shy about his principles.

Mr. Colwell said he also supported the original version of the law because he thought it would give business owners the right to deny services if delivering them offended their religious sensibilities. The revisions disappointed him.

“To me, it’s almost repealing the law without repealing it,” he said. “It hurts me to know that if I take a stand on an issue based on my religious convictions, that I’m labeled as a discriminator, and I’m just not.”

Okay, if I'm getting this right, Ryan resents being labeled a discriminator when it's merely his chosen religion that's the discriminator. And people say Hoosiers aren't welcoming.


And, oh yes, here's a ringing retort in case there was any lingering question about the "intent" of Indiana's as-written God Says We Gotta Hate Them Homos Act.

Okay, we have time for maybe one more such story, and this one comes from Cody Button, 22, who started his high school's first LGBT group "after he was criticized by faculty for kissing a boy in the hallway." He's torn by the Hate Them Homos Act. "It makes me feel for Indiana, all the businesses that are backing out," he says.

But he also said he understood why business owners might want the legal system to protect them if they refused to serve gay customers on religious grounds. He noted that a friend’s father, who runs an environmental remediation company, faced a similar situation recently when asked to do a job for a satanic church.

I wonder whether thinking that being gay is just like being a satanist ever came up in Cory's high school LGBT group.

To be sure, reporter Fausset found other voices. He doesn't seem to have actually found journalist Stephanie Dolan, but he did read her piece "Are there more than bigots in Indiana" in NUVO, "Indy's alternative voice."

“ ‘Hoosier hospitality’ has been a phrase that I’ve heard my whole life,” Stephanie Dolan, a journalist, wrote recently in NUVO Newsweekly, an Indianapolis alternative paper. “It’s hokey and it’s corny, and — if you’re easily annoyed like me — it’s a bit off-putting in its sappiness. But there was never any mistaking its sincerity.”

“Now?” she added. “I can only think of that phrase ironically.”

I guess there was no need to actually talk to Stephanie, except maybe to find out her age, which alas goes unreported. Apparently the NYT doesn't feel obliged to report the age of people who merely write stuff.

In addition, reporter Fausset finds, "The perception that the law had created an unwelcoming atmosphere was shared by a number of business-oriented conservatives." Godliness, it would appear, may stop at the cash register. Score one for Hoosier hospitality.

Reporter Fausset found more dissenting voices in Indianapolis, "the more diverse and gay-friendly capital," where "many said the law had always struck them as the height of rudeness" and "some characterized it as a solution in search of a problem." Would you be surprised to learn that one of those voices spoke with an accent?

Enza Papalia, 69, a native of Italy who immigrated to the United States in 1963, laid into Mr. Pence on Thursday afternoon from behind the counter at J. Papalia Tailoring, a renowned Indianapolis shop established by her husband.

“What is he trying to prove?” she said in a voice still redolent of her native land. “What’s the point? Is anything good going to come out of this?”

TO ALL THOSE HOOSIERS WHO FRET ABOUT
THE TARNISH TO THEIR STATE'S REPUTATION --

In closing, I offer consolation in the form of two pairs of words:

(1) What reputation?

(2) Dan Quayle.

Do the hospitable Hoosiers not remember having gifted the country with a man of whom it can be said, without fear of contradiction: Gosh darn it, he was vice president of the U.S.A. While hospitable Hoosiers dream about the imagined slur on Hoosier hospitality, many non-Hoosiers have nightmares about the ensuing hordes of crypto-Quayles who have worked so hard to drag the standard of competence and decency ever lower. You know, like far, far right-wing pandering hate-monger Gov. Mikey Pants.

#

There's no excuse for Jim DeMoron, and still less excuse for people who take him in any way seriously

The shame of Dan Quayle wasn't that he was so lazy or stupid, or even that he has led a life and reaped the rewards of wholly undeserved privilege. The shame is that he has the arrogance to present himself on the public stage -- and has been so successful.

"Jim DeMint is correct that there was a belligerent during the American Civil War that rejected 'big government.' He’s just wrong about which side that was."

-- Ian Millhiser, in "Head Of Top Conservative Think Tank
Makes Spectacularly Uninformed Statement About Slavery"

by Ken

You remember the famous Dan Quayle potato-potatoe incident? Whe Vice President Quayle, with the TV cameras rolling, presumed to "correct" a schoolkid's perfectly correct spelling of "potato" by adding an "e"?

What was outrageous wasn't that he had been too lazy or stupid to learn how to spell a word like potato, regrettable as that may be in the case of a man wo had been elected to two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, three terms in the U.S. Senate, and a term as vice president of the U.S. No, what was outrageous was that a person of his ingrained ignorance had the gall to correct (and on national TV) a kid who had actually taken the trouble to learn how to spell the word.

Well, that and the fact that a wildly overpriviileged beast of such consummate ignorance, arrogance, and utter unconcern about either should have been elected to two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, three terms in the U.S. Senate, and a term as vice president of the U.S. That's what escalates it from the level of richly deserved personal humiliation to stinging national disgrace.

In this context, I invite you to read this exchange:

GUEST: This progressive, the whole idea of being progressive is to progress away from those ideas that made this country great. What we’re trying to conserve as conservative are those things that work. They work today, they work for young people, they work for minorities and we can change this country and change its course very quickly if we just remember what works.
INTERVIEWER: What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’
GUEST: Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.

The guest was Heritage Foundation boss man (and former U.S. Sen.) Jim DeMoron, once one of the most influential obstructions in the U.S. Senate process, speaking on the broadcast Vocal Point with interviewer Jerry Newcombe of Truth in Action Ministries -- as passed on by Right Wing Watch's Brian Tashman. (I should add that Brian calls attention as well to other monumental imbecilities of DeMoron's from the broadcast, and also that I was directed to his post by a ThinkProgress post by Ian Millhiser, to which we'll be returning.)

There isn't a single assertion in this loose-screw-a-thon that isn't wrong but catastrophically wrong, in almost every case turning the actual meaning upside down. As should be clear to anyone who has spent a few weeks in a high school American-history class can tell, DeMoron has not the slightest clue what's in the U.S. Constitution, which specifically allowed and provided for slavery. As every schoolchild knows, this is the single most blatant deviation from grace in the founding of our republic.

And of course, unfortunately for him, DeMoron has heard a few catch phrases from the Declaration of Independence, but since he has never read it or had any instruction in U.S. history, he has not a shot at understanding those undigested bits. For the same reasons, knows nothing whatsoever about either the life or politcal thinking of Abraham Lincoln. His notion that he and Abraham Lincoln have anything whatsoever of a political nature in common just because they're both Republicans demonstrates that he knows as little about the life or work of Lincoln, or about the history of the Republican Party, than he knows about, well, anything else in the universe, with the sole exception of how to succeed a savage promoter of criminally insane ideologies that can only be believed by the mentally defective.

And yet here is this demented, savage beast displaying the unmitigated gall to insist on replacing actual history with his psychotic lies and delusions. Why isn't such a loathsome specimen of antihumanity not booed and spat at anytime he foists his demented carcass on an apparently unsuspecting public.

Now, if you'd like to see DeMoron's moronicisms more politely and rationally (not to mention elegantly) dismantled, in addition to looking at Brian Tashman's Right Wing Watch post, we can look at how my cherished legal eagle Ian Millhiser did it in the aforementioned ThinkProgress post, "Head of Top Conservative Think Tank Makes Spectacularly Uninformed Statement About Slavery." (I might note that the URL for Ian's piece contains the slug "jim-demint-may-have-just-made-the-most-uninformed-statement-anyone-has-ever-made-about-slavery" Yes!)

It’s difficult to know where to begin a list of the errors this brief passage. The phrase “all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights” does not appear in the Constitution, although a very similar phrase does appear in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the Constitution, at least as it stood before the Civil War, had very different things to say about the subject of human equality. It provided, for example, that “[n]o person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” The original Constitution also contained explicit language prohibiting Congress from banning the importation of new slaves until 1808.

Nevertheless, DeMint is technically correct that “the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution.” That’s because the Thirteenth Amendment provides that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude. . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Thirteenth Amendment did not, however, simply come into being because Abraham Lincoln had a “love in his heart that comes from God.” Rather, it happened because Lincoln led the nation in a massive big government program known as the “Civil War“.
During this war, the United States raised an army of over two million service members who clashed with a Confederate army of about half that size. Moreover, the war effort increased federal spending nearly 25 times. As the leader of a centralized government in Washington, DC, Lincoln also issued a document known as the “Emancipation Proclamation,” which ordered slaves in the Confederate states freed.

Notably, while the Thirteenth Amendment ended the legal practice of human chattel slavery, state laws such as the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South to maintain the inferior status of former slaves and their descendants. These laws were eventually eradicated by big government as well, primarily through legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It’s also worth noting that the Confederate system of government differed from the Union’s system in that it placed far less power in a strong central government. While the United States Constitution, permits the federal government to “lay and collect taxes . . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” for example, the Confederate Constitution excluded the power to “provide for the general welfare.” Thus, the United States Constitution permits major national spending programs such as Medicare or Social Security, while these programs would have been unconstitutional in the Confederacy. Similarly, the Confederate Constitution includes a rigid limit on national infrastructure spending — forbidding its congress from “appropriat[ing] money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” — a limit that does not appear in the United States Constitution.

So Jim DeMint is correct that there was a belligerent during the American Civil War that rejected “big government.” He’s just wrong about which side that was.

[Note: There are lots of links onsite.]

I don't know that anyone thinks of the Heritage Foundation as anything but a propaganda mill since DeMoron took over there, a comedown from its former status as an embarrassing fount of right-wing political hackery. Hey, there's an important gap between embarrassment and disgrace.

In case you haven't reminded yourself recently, this is what the party of Lincoln has come to.

#

"David Letterman's Top 10 Political Top 10 Lists" (Jaime Fuller, washingtonpost.com)

"Extra Credit": Not a Top Ten List, but . . .


Remember the time Young Johnny McCranky blew Dave off the night he had suspended his campaign because of campaign finances, and appeared with Katie Couric the same day? Jaime Fuller writes: "It wasn't a good idea, as Letterman proceeded to spend the entire time reserved for his McCain interview for a long roast of the presidential candidate, saying 'somebody must have put something in his Metamucil.' He recruited Keith Olbermann -- McCain's replacement -- to join the grumblefest."

by Ken

As you probably know, on Thursday's Late Show with David Letterman Dave announced that he'll be retiring from the show in 2015 (more or less). To celebrate the occasion, the Washington Post's Jaime Fuller compiled for "The Fix" what she calls "David Letterman’s Top 10 Political Top 10s." I thought we should share some of them.


10. RICK PERRY



"Top Ten Rick Perry Excuses"

10. “Actually there were three reasons I messed up last night. One was the nerves, two was the headache and three was, and three, uh, uh. Oops.”

9. “I don’t know what you’re talking about. I think things went well.”
8. “Hey, I was up late last night watching 'Dancing With the Stars.'”

7. “I thought the debate was tonight.”

6. “Hey, listen. You try concentrating with Mitt Romney smiling at you. That is one handsome dude.”

5. “Uh, El Nino?”
4. “I had a five-hour energy drink six hours before the debate.”
3. “I really hoped to get on my favorite talk show, but instead I ended up here.”
2. “Hey, I wanted to help take the heat off my buddy Herman Cain.”
1. “I just learned Justin Bieber is my father.”


9. PAUL RYAN

"Top Ten Little-Known Facts About Paul Ryan"

10. He's only the 23rd white guy to become Republican Vice-Presidential nominee
9. Was runner-up on season 3 of "The Bachelorette"
8. Always shampoos once, conditions twice

7. Got his start in Congress as John Boehner's tanning boy
6. Claims to be "a lady in the street, but a freak in the sheets"
5. Like the rest of America, wonders what Romney is hiding in his tax returns
4. Has a good feeling about this Jennifer Aniston marriage working out

3. Eats nothing but plants, berries, and small turtles

2. Even before working at Oscar Mayer, had reputation for "driving the Weinermobile"

1. Born in Kenya


8. ANTHONY WEINER



"Top Ten Other Anthony Weiner Pseudonyms"

10. Carlos Dangler

9. Peter Tweeter
8. Eliot Spitzer
7. Perv Griffin
6. James Wand
5. Dwight Thighsenhower

4. Throb Reiner

3. Donald Hump
2. The Notorious Not-So-B.I.G.
1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejunk


7. NEWT GINGRICH

"Top Ten Signs Newt Gingrich Is Losing It"

10. New campaign slogan: "What up, Gingsta?"

9. Since losing Iowa, he's married and divorced eight different women.

8. Has EMTs standing by at all times.

7. Quit campaign to buy a zoo with Matt Damon -- still in theaters, people.
6. When he hears the word "caucus," drops his pants and says, "I'll show you a caucus!"
5. In every speech, he attacks Walter Mondale.
4. His New Year's resolution? Be doughiest man he can be.

3. Makes cameo appearance in Casey Anthony's new video blog.

2. Losing it? When did he ever have it?
1. Claims he was born in Kenya.


6. MITT ROMNEY

"Top Ten Things Mitt Romney Would Like to Say to the American People"

10. "Isn't it time for a president who looks like a 1970s game show host?"
9. "What's up, gangstas? It's the M-I-Double Tizzle."
8.  "I have no proof, but I have a feeling Canada is planning something."

7. "Actually, I'm only here to meet Tom Cruise."

6. "Live from New York, it's Saturday night!"
5. "My new cologne is now available at Macy's. It's Mittstified."
4. "I just used all my campaign money to buy a zoo with Matt Damon."

3. "I can do a lot, but even I can't fix the Indianapolis Colts."
2. "Newt Gingrich? Really?"
1. "It's a hair piece."


5. ROB FORD

Five lists!


4. DAN QUAYLE

"Many a Top Ten list," including --

"Dan Quayle's Top Ten Pickup Lines"

10. Didn't we almost flunk out of school together?

9. How about a drink with a historical footnote?
8. I sure would have gone to Vietnam if the Cong looked like you

7. Can my father buy you a drink?

6. You could close your eyes and pretend I'm Jack Kemp

5. I think I saw Elvis last week at the Stuckey's on the interstate
4. Look! I've got a bunch of balloons with my name on them!

3. A girl like you could help a guy forget the irreparable damage he's done to the Republican Party

2. I'll be Vice President after we beat Dukakis and Lloyd Bridges
1. Why, yes, I am Pat Sajak

"Top Ten Reasons Dan Quayle Would Make a Great President"

10. Would not seem like brainy egghead when visiting nation's injured professional wrestlers. 

9. Boyish good looks would cause Mrs. Gorbachev to fall in love, reveal state secrets.
8. His willingness to don inspiring Eagle Man costume on national holidays. 

7. Secret Service agents wouldn't have to take their jobs so seriously.
6. Hilarious hijinks when mischievous staffer tells him to go stand in corner of Oval Office.
5. State of the Union Address would be three minutes tops. 

4. Might really enjoy the part where after signing a bill into law, he gets to pass out a lot of souvenir pens. 

3. Would satisfy little-known constitutional requirement that Chief Executive be "dumb as a tree."
2. We'd get to watch him grow up on TV. 

1. Impossible to pick himself as Vice President.


3. VLADIMIR PUTIN


2. HILLARY CLINTON




"Top Ten Reasons Hillary Loves America"

10. We have more Dakotas than every other country combined.
9. Canadian bacon: soggy and chewy; American bacon: crisp and delicious!
8. Thanks to the Internet, I can order new pantsuits 24/7 – there’s your pantsuit joke, Dave. Are you happy now?
7. 232 years and not one cookie shortage.
6. TiVo
5. Did I mention the soup? Mmm, soup.
4. Did you know former President Teddy Roosevelt was an American?
3. Where else can you get a car painted for $29.95?
2. Is this the part where I say, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”?
1. Apparently anyone can get a talk show.


1. SEN. BARACK OBAMA (January 2008)



"Top Ten Barack Obama Campaign Promises"

10. "To keep the budget balanced, I'll rent the Situation Room to Sweet Sixteens"

9. "I will double your tax money at the craps table"
8. "I'll appoint Mitt Romney Secretary of Looking Good"
7. "If you bring the gator to the White House, I'll wrassle it"
6. "I'll put Regis on the nickel"

5. "I'll rename the tenth month of the year Baracktober"

4. "I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model" (So much has changed since 2008...)

3. "I'll find money in the budget to buy Letterman a decent hairpiece"

2. "Pronounce the word nuclear, nuclear"

1. "Three words, Vice President Oprah"

#

The PRyan pick isn't likely to change the outcome of the election, but it tells us something about the mindset of Willard Inc.

While debate continues to rage as to whether PRyan is an utterly lousy (but utterly appropriate) veep pick because he's such a useless shell of a human being or because he's such a virulent ignoramus, delusionary, and extremist crackpot, there's general agreement that it won't make a lick of difference in the outcome.

"An aide to the former Massachusetts governor acknowledged that after weeks of vetting, meetings, and even joint public appearances with the three men [Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Paul Ryan], 'They have totally blended together for him. . . . We were told to find a white male who was less interesting than Mitt. And we thought we hit the jackpot with these three. Then this telling-them-apart-from-each-other problem cropped up. I can tell you, it's a big mess."

-- from the Borowitz Report yesterday

"The man of the hour used his brief remarks to lay out his vision of America, saying that billions of dollars could be saved by eliminating food, clothing, and shelter."

-- from the Borowitz Report today, on a just-discovered
"less interesting person than Mitt Romney"

by Ken

Why should I be the only person in My Two Cents' Worth Land who doesn't have something to say about the selection of the Unspeakable Paul Ryan to be a heartbeat away from the planned presidency of the Incorporated Willard. (Question: Will PRyan have to incorporate too? Or does he come pre-incorporated?)

It's really, really hard to persuade people that no, the veep choice doesn't really affect the outcome of a presidential contest. I know because it took me a long, long time to understand it.

I mean, Dan Quayle?

But the veep choice can certainly affect the tone of the contest, which clearly happened in 2008 when Young Johnny McCranky unleashed Princess Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting world -- a world that, for all its ills, may not have quite deserved that. I don't think I have to rehash the transformation in tone which Princess Sarah wrought on the campaign. But in the end, I really don't see that it affected the outcome in any meaningful way.

The people who were inspired by the princess's screeching, hate-strewn imbecilities -- and, let's say it, by the bountiful princessly bosom -- would by and large have voted for McCranky anyway, and the people who were shocked-and-awed by the breadth and depth of her wall-to-wall ignorance and delusion, toxically reality-defying ideological savavery, and screeching ineptitude would by and large have taken a flier on Obama anyway. Perhaps the choice made both camps feel better, or at least more decisive, about their own choice, but I don't see that any significant number of minds were altered.

I think this is even more the case with the anointment of the Unspeakable PRyan. (I will remain persuaded that "Unspeakable" is PRyan's actual legal given name, and will remains so persuaded until he produces a birth certificate, and probably even after, since, as we know, anyone can fake a birth certificate.) And my first thought was of a Thursday blogpost by The New Yorker's John Cassidy, "From Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin to Mini-Mitt: What the Veep Choice Will Reveal," in which he wrote:

If he does what most of the pundits expect and picks Rob Portman, the junior Senator from Ohio, or Tim Pawlenty, the former Governor of Minnesota, it indicates that the Mittster, despite all the polls, remains fairly confident of victory. Both Portman and Pawlenty are mini-Mitts: moderate, non-ideological technocrats who hardly set the pulses racing. . . .

If Romney picks either of them it will suggest he thinks his campaign is in trouble and he needs to shake things up. Either Ryan or Rubio would energize the G.O.P.’s conservative base. . . .

Then there is a quartet of governorswho could possibly be chosen [NJ's Christie, SC's Hale, LA's Jindal, VA's McDonnell] plus any number of others, including, I suppose, General David Petraeus, whose name Matt Drudge has been bandying around. Picking any of these lot would represent a Hail Mary pass.

If I were making the choice, since I think the Romney campaign is in serious bother, I would take a punt on Rubio or Christie, hoping that it would alter the dynamics. . . . But my hopes would be tempered by the memory of Quayle, Palin, and all the other Veep candidates who garnered acres of newsprint and didn’t count for much on Election Day. In fact, here’s a challenge: Can anybody think of a running mate who made a substantial difference? [JC himself proposes Lyndon Johnson, who by nook or by crook enabled John Kennedy to carry Texas and win the 1960 election.]

None of this struck me as remarkable on Thursday, but somehow today, with the choice announced, it seems to me totally to the point. The Ryan pick tells us that Willard "thinks his campaign is in trouble and he needs to shake things up" and he thinks the way to shake things up is to "energize the G.O.P.’s conservative base." This is, in other words, McCranky Redux.

Cassidy too harks back, in a post today ("Why Romney Picked Ryan: Let’s Change the Subject from Me"), harks back to his earlier post:

A couple of days ago, I remarked that if Romney selected Ryan or Marco Rubio it would show that he was in trouble, and needed to shake up the campaign. That still seems right. In placing a lightning rod like Ryan on the ticket, Romney appears to have decided that the best form of defense is attack. For months, he and his campaign have been trying to turn the election exclusively into a referendum on Obama’s record. That strategy has now been abandoned. Ryan’s mere presence ensures that the election will be framed in the way that Team Obama has wanted all along: as a choice between the President’s moderate progressivism and the anti-government radicalism of today’s G.O.P.

Note that Cassidy's New Yorker colleague Jane Mayer also blogged today on the PRyan pick: "Ayn Rand Joins the Ticket."


AS USUAL, THOUGH, IT'S PROBABLY ANDY BOROWITZ
WHO'S GOT THE MOST INCISIVE, ILLUMINATING TAKE

U.S.S. WISCONSIN (The Borowitz Report) -- An exhaustive manhunt that took months and spanned the country came to a dramatic end today as a less interesting person than Mitt Romney turned up in Wisconsin.

On the deck of the U.S.S. Wisconsin, officials from the Guinness Book of World Records were on hand to certify the result of the search.

"This man is in fact the least interesting person in America," one Guinness official said, adding that Mr. Romney himself had held that title since 1947.

Mr. Romney and the man made a joint appearance, after which the audience was advised not to operate heavy machinery.

The man of the hour used his brief remarks to lay out his vision of America, saying that billions of dollars could be saved by eliminating food, clothing, and shelter.

For his part, Mr. Romney sounded a theme for the fall campaign: "It's time to transform America, and the two of us are both Transformers."

And here, for the record, was Andy's take yesterday, in the Borowitz Report post "Romney Veepstakes Deadlocked":

The race to become the Republican vice-presidential candidate seemed hopelessly deadlocked today as Mitt Romney announced he would choose between former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Senator Rob Portman, and Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan "as soon as I can tell them apart."

An aide to the former Massachusetts governor acknowledged that after weeks of vetting, meetings, and even joint public appearances with the three men, "they have totally blended together for him."

Mr. Romney's inability to distinguish Pawlenty from Portman, Portman from Ryan, and Ryan from Pawlenty may have its origins, the aide said, in the prerequisites that the vice-presidential search committee was originally given.

"We were told to find a white male who was less interesting than Mitt," he said. "And we thought we hit the jackpot with these three. Then this telling-them-apart-from-each-other problem cropped up. I can tell you, it's a big mess."

Face-to-face meetings between Mr. Romney and the three men on his shortlist have done nothing to ameliorate the problem, the aide said, "because when each of these guys talks to him he starts losing consciousness."

The campaign has even resorted to creating flashcards with the likenesses of Messrs. Pawlenty, Ryan, and Portman on one side and their names on the back, but to no avail.

CONFIDENTIAL TO NY-ER WRITERS WHO KNOW BETTER
BUT REFER TO RyanL's PRyan PUFF PIECE AS "TERRIFIC"

For mercy's sake, cut it out! I'm not going to mention any names (this time), but you know who you are. Let's just call you, oh, I don't know, maybe "John" and "Jane."

By all means feel free to refer back to factual disclosures in the piece. Heck, even I was intrigued by some of the biographical detail. And maybe you thought you were being cleverly limiting, hypothetical "Jane," by hypothetically including the word "biographical" in your hypothetical reference to RyanL's "terrific biographical Profile of Ryan." But biography accounted for only a small portion of the piece, and the rest of it was a pile of truly horrible Inside the Beltway manure, and I have to believe that you of all people know this, "Jane" (which again isn't necessarily the name of any actual person; it could be a totally made-up name).


PS: WE REALLY HAVE TO ADD THE BOROWITZ REPORT'S
"UNUSUALLY CANDID INTERVIEW WITH MITT ROMNEY"

As long as we're tipping hats to the Borowitz Report for its miles-ahead coverage of the 2012 GOP presidential candidate, an proper Willard Watcher would have to go back to Thursday's "Unusually Candid Interview with Mitt Romney," which began:

Q: What do you see as the biggest challenge of your campaign going forward?
A: Well, I suppose the biggest challenge would be the same one I’ve faced all my life: that no one likes me. But as I’ve found in the past, money usually takes care of that.

Q: What do you need to do to persuade the right wing of your party that you’re one of them?
A: Well, first and foremost, I have to do a better job of convincing them that I believe in the crazy things they do. The problem is, the media keeps emphasizing aspects of my resume that make me sound sane . . . .

And goes on to ask such questions as: "How are you working to change the perception that you’re sane?"

#

It's possible to be as stupid as Evan Bayh, but does anyone in his position have the right to be? PLUS: Jay Leno on Obama vs. Bush

Senator Evan with one of his prominent admirers

by Ken

Longtime DWT readers know that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is not a favorite here. Howie and I have fairly often been driven to fairly extreme vituperation. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the guy has a working brain, because if he does, the only use he makes of it is to process his intake of prevailing-wind measurements.

He is to all appearances the worst kind of gutless panderer, and I do mean the worst kind, because he is not only willing but happy to pander to voters' deepest ignorances rather than attempt to exercise the tiniest bit of leadership and attempt to educate them. When it comes to a grasp of social and economic issues and the backbone to exercise leadership thereon, his model appears to be a leftover dish of tapioca pudding.

It's all the more distressing because his father, former Sen. Birch Bayh, was a genuine statesman of the '60s and '70s -- and since being thrust out of elective office has continued to champion the values he espoused in government in other sectors. Is there not some eerie symbolic resonance to the fact that Senator Birch was ousted from his seat by that poster boy for idle-rich imbecility Dan Quayle in 1980, in the same election that installed Ronald Reagan, the man who made the U.S. officially a country built on and devoted to imbecility? Is there any reason to think that Senator Evan is anything other than a (nominally) Democratic version of Dan Quayle?

But this is an old story. Granted, it became topical during the last presidential election cycle, when first candidate Hillary Clinton and then nominee Barack Obama seemed perfectly prepared to make this giant lunk of nothingness her/his running mate. Still, we dodged that bullet -- and while Joe Biden may not be my all-time favorate U.S. politico, every time I hear "Vice President Biden," I still remember only too vividly how close we apparently came to, well, a different outcome.

This is still old news, though. Well, Senator Evan has popped up again. He's one of 14 Democrats, as counted by stalwart progressive Mike Lux in a stirring HuffPost exhortation, "Dems Need To Drop Culture Of Caution," who were identified in a Wednesday Politico piece "as having concerns with [President] Obama's policy plans." It seems the Politico 14 are trying to counsel caution to the White House.

It's an exciting piece from our colleague and friend Mike, stressing that the great Democratic victories for social progress have never come from being cautious. Everyone should read this piece. (This seem an appropriate place too for a plug for Mike's new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be.) But the quote from our boy Evan still has me spluttering. Here's a post I churned out earlier to a list on which Mike's post was circulated:

At the risk of belaboring the bleedingly obvious, Politico quotes that great thinker and crack economist Sen. Evan Bayh as saying:

"The American people and businesses are tightening their belts. I think we need to show that the government can economize, as well."

Much as I admire Mike Lux's exhortation for Dems to rise above caution, this isn't even a "caution" issue, is it?

(1) Isn't the fact that NOBODY IS SPENDING a functional description of how we have sunk into, and are mired in, a depression (still masquerading in polite society as recession)? (Hence the logic for "economic stimulus"?)

(2) I know that Senator Bayh isn't very bright. I've called him things like "imbecile." But is it really possible that a prominent Democratic U.S. senator -- a man who came this close to being nominated for the vice presidency -- DOESN'T GRASP THIS? I understand that he's got a serious and apparently incurable case of panderitis, but still . . .

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
JAY LENO ON PRESIDENTS BUSH AND OBAMA


"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on Meet the Press yesterday. And he said that Barack Obama is more analytical than President Bush. Well, there's a shock, huh? I think Tickle Me Elmo is more analytical than President Bush."

#