I don’t read Steve M.’s blog every day, but I read it often enough that I think I recognize a mantra when I see it. Steve uses a lens to interpret the right, and it seems to have a lot of explanatory power. It basically works like this: the right revels in annoying us, and the more a right-wing mouthpiece annoys us, the more popular they will get. So, for example, if you can’t figure out why Marco Rubio isn’t more popular among wingnuts, the answer is that we think he’s a harmless, mildly corrupt, non-entity. He does nothing to raise our blood pressure and isn’t even obnoxious enough to arouse our contempt.
Besides the obvious problem (Rubio used to support immigration reform), Rubio is struggling because he “wears his ideology lightly.” He’d be doing much better if Republicans thought he scared Paul Waldman and the rest of us liberals and lefties, the way Scott Walker does.
Of course Walker impresses GOP voters: his union-busting, electoral victories, and mutually beneficial relationship with the Koch brothers drive us nuts. Republican voters love that. By contrast, when has Rubio ever left us sputtering with rage? When has he gotten the better of us?
Ben Carson is popular on the right because he launched an attack on President Obama at the ostensibly apolitical National Prayer Breakfast. Chris Christie used to be popular on the right because he fought unions and publicly dressed down teachers and other critics. That’s how you win favor on the right — and Rubio doesn’t do it.
The easiest thing for Rubio to do to remedy this is to ramp up The Stupid substantially. He made a good start of it this week by saying some painfully idiotic things about the Middle East. That got him some positive attention from the morons.
This is a good start, but he needs to start saying things that aren’t merely addled but that cause actual cramps in normally functioning brains. The bigger and more brutal the logical fallacy the better. He’ll get extra points for thinking up things that are so insane that we can’t even imagine how he came up with them in the first place. I am looking at Louie Gohmert and terror babies here. David Vitter understands.
In any case, unless and until Rubio truly embraces Steve M’s theory of wingnut politics, he’s going to be stuck at the back of the pack.
[Cross-posted at Progress Pond]
So, for example, if you can’t figure out why Marco Rubio isn’t more popular among wingnuts, the answer is that we think he’s a harmless, mildly corrupt, non-entity. He does nothing to raise our blood pressure and isn’t even obnoxious enough to arouse our contempt.
Doesn’t that go for Jindal too? Are there other GOP clowns like that?
All 47 of the TP/GOP letter signers to Iran should resign and head to Israel immediately.
“All 47 of the TP/GOP letter signers to Iran should resign and be airdropped on Tehran, because that’s some weapons-grade STUPID“
Fixed for accuramacy.
Steve M is missing a step in that analysis.
There’s an arc to the national public stage careers of GOP wingnuts pols. 1) Gets financial, institutional and/or media backing for a minor or backwater office and wins. 2) It hailed by one or more of TPTB as the future of the party. 3) Democrats/liberals are forced to take a look the rising star’s record, etc. and assess the risk this pol poses for non-rightwing policies and candidates. 4) that “star” has his/her debut on the national stage. As soon as the “star” becomes laughable through his/her own words and actions, she/he ceases to be of interest to both the left and right. Doesn’t matter how much more stupid stuff she/he says — their star has fizzled and cannot be born again.
Perry, Jindal, and Rubio would like to believe that isn’t so; but these numbers says it is. Bachmann got there quickly between the first 2012 GOP debate and Iowa straw poll and the Iowa caucua. Palin got there faster — a three weeks. Took Romney a few years — although his LQ (laughability quotient) had been rising throughout his campaigns, it was “Please proceed, Governor” that dropped into the laugh pile. (His VP scrubbing already clean pots was also laughable, but not seen by too many.)
Laughability quotient…is so high for these 3 clowns they will never get to ride in the clown car. They just run behind the clown car tripping over those over sized shoes they will never fill.
Sorry for all the typos and dropped words, but the gist of my comment is hopefully clear enough.
Additional thoughts. Prompting/promoting laughter is the key. Mocking is just another attack strategy. Not nearly as effective and requires more effort and time for it to work in the margins.
Republicans and particularly teabaggers aren’t very good at such deliveries or appropriately responsive as an audience. They tend to remain in serious attack or defense mode. (Recall Palin’s “I read all of them” but unable to name even one left half the audience laughing and the wingers howling “not fair.”) Liberal audiences are quicker to snicker in such moments. (And should refrain from so many OMGs!)
Did GWB land one of two of these in the 2000 debates? If so, the Bush team knows the power of this tactic even when the candidate is as lame as GWB.
Nailed it, Marie.
Remember Reagan’s “there you go again…” which actually means absolutely nothing. Just right for the TP.
Laughter IS the best medicine. Holding up what these turkeys actually say while laughing out loud is the one sure way to kill them.
TP and Communists. No sense of humor at all.
Good one! If we reflect on this for a while, we can probably come up a few more examples of when this works. The actor politician has to be fast on his/her feet because a canned/rehearsed variant has a low probability of success for two reasons: 1) not many pols are good enough actors to carry it off 2) it has to fit the moment. Mondale’s “where’s the beef?” was canned.
Here’s one:
Um, this has been com on knowledge for at least ten years. It was a huge part of the Palin appeal. Also dovetails nicely with the bitchslap theory of politics.