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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …