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?

presidenting is hard :: these people are not your friends

hello mr. president! a while back, i promised that i would periodically be giving you some advice on how to do your job, since you seem a little unclear on how everything works. i didn't mean to go so long between missives, but the fact is that i've been busy and you're administration has been in overdrive giving me things to write about. what i've realised is that many of those things are ones i can't help you with: if you or anyone in your immediate circle worked with russians to compromise the 2016 election, that shit is done. robert mueller is going to find that out, because he's the kind of person who looks like the theme from dragnet just automatically starts playing every time he enters a room. so that's your problem. i'm just here to talk to you about what you can do now that you are, by law, the president. because, while chief detective mueller is doing his thing, we all need to live with your decisions. i'm even less happy about that than…

write brain

i was talking to a friend of mine about coffee, specifically about our mutual need for coffee, yesterday and, literally as i was in the middle of a thought, an idea occurred to me that i felt like i had to note. so there i am, scribbling a note to myself that was really just a word salad of related terms, which i later transformed into a weird but more comprehensible note that i could refer to later. [i don't want another beatriz coca situation on my hands.] i feel like this idea isn't a story on its own, but something that i could incorporate into a larger project, which is good, because i have a few of those.

now, of course, i need to sit down and do research on this, because it's become terribly important to me that the details of this weird little idea that i'm planning on incorporating into a larger thing be totally plausible, even though no one but me is ever going to care. i'm increasingly convinced that the goal of every writer is to find someone who will t…

luck of the irish?

i like st. patrick's day. i like the fact that there is a holiday that celebrates celtic-ness and drunkeness at once (you could argue they were pretty close to begin with). in fact, it's probably second only to halloween as my favourite publicly recognised holiday.

so every year, i have to have my little ritual and that ritual involves visiting a pub and partaking of the cheer. i've made attempts at watching parades in various cities, but i've more recently given up that practice because a) eight out of ten times, it's freezing cold and/ or snowing in canada on march 17th and b) the parades seem to consist entirely of trucks carrying people who are as drunk as i would be, if i weren't freezing my tush off watching them. so i've backed off the parade in recent years.

however, a visit to the pub, the longer the better, is still an important thing for me.

next year, however, i'm going to have to plan things a little better.

first of all, i didn't …