Skip to main content

well that was fun while it lasted...

i suppose i knew that this was going to happen, but it does seem like every time i get to like a television show, it either jumps the shark [an expression that always sounds like something you dare a drunk teenaged boy to do] or gets canceled. and so it is with "the republicans".

to be honest, since they moved the show away from the "debate" format and started getting rid of some of the more entertaining characters, it's gotten a little stale. i mean, i know that you always need the central character to be a sort of "straight man" so that the audience can identify, but the character of stiff rich guy mitt just doesn't seem that human.

i originally didn't see much of a future for the uptight, repressed rick santorum character, because he was just so outrageous, ill-informed and objectionable that, even in the beginning-of-season crowd, it seemed impossible that he could get taken seriously. but the writers really brought him to life after that first big shindig in iowa and compared to robo-romney, a man who once compared homosexuality to bestiality seemed like the genuine one.

far from seeming unbelievable, santo almost got a little too real, telegraphing one of my all-time favourite bits from mel brooks...

original
santo

... you know what, rick? i believe you. i once told dom "don't get your knickers in a knot", which was how i found out that that expression is not widely known in french canada and sounds a lot like something else when you don't enunciate properly. it's just that when i stumble like that, dom takes my vodka smoothies away and tells me to get some sleep. when you stumble like that, people think you're playing to your audience. which should tell you something about what we think of your audience.

yes, things are over for santo, which basically ruins the whole "republicans" show, because the gingrich character just didn't turn out to be as interesting and funny as he looked at first. but the fact is, mitt romney and the republican campaign of 2012 has been marked by santorum and that mark cannot simply be wiped away.

the entire story has become about romney's lack of appeal with "real" republicans compared to santo's. and "real" republicans are apparently those who appreciate a good ni-joke. although they might try to hide it by nominating the guy who looks like he rolled off an assembly line he then shut down and moved to india, you've made a stand for the core of the republican party: people who fear homosexuals, the educated, women [or at least their womanly parts], muslims, union workers, hispanics and the poor.

so bravo, santo, as you ride off into the distance. thanks to your candidacy, we all know a little bit more about who the republicans really are.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…