What's usually a routine vote on the Republican National Convention's rules slate descended into chaos on Monday afternoon as anti-Donald Trump delegates tried to force a state-by-state roll call vote.
The push for a roll call vote was viewed as a last stand for anti-Trump forces, who said they had
a majority of signatures from at least nine delegations, more than
necessary to force the vote. But the convention chair eventually ruled
that the #NeverTrump crew's petition wasn't sufficient to force such a
vote and the rules were adopted by voice vote.
All that happened was a brief moment during the rules adoption where the NeverTrumpers tried to get a chance to say NeverTrump one more time in an official roll call. They still would have lost but it didn't matter. It made for a fun few minutes of shouting on CNN. But it did not and was never going to amount to anything. The episode was a pale imitation of the actual fight the Republicans had at the convention in 1976, but none of the overly excitable CNN commentators seemed to have even that much perspective.
It's hard to blame them. They're as bored as we are. And, apart from the debates, the Republican Convention is the last chance to get any semi-unscripted entertainment out of this rapidly deflating election. So here we are.
It's a nice thought to consider that the Trump Convention might actually be an elaborate parody of the farcical product launch that is any other major party nominating convention. Unfortunately, it's probably not that. It's probably just a trainwreck.
Tuesday evening, chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox
appeared at the Republican National Convention to speak about guns, guns
and guns, which was kind of strange, really, given the night’s official
theme was “Make America Work Again.”
A paper schedule handed out by the party Tuesday morning may offer
some insight: It, like the convention’s official app, lists an entirely different Chris Cox, the former congressman who once chaired the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
We heard from Willie Robertson, a star of "Duck Dynasty," actor Scott
Baio and model and soap opera star Antonio Sabato, Jr., who CNN
helpfully noted once appeared in an underwear ad that hung from Trump
Tower
There's no way they'd intentionally just have an old man yell and spit un-self-consciously.
Right? I mean, it's true that this whole event looks like a performance art send-up of your typical political convention. But that's also been an apt description of this entire campaign.
Anyway it's been hard to say what's real and what's a joke for a very long time now.
CLEVELAND — The Republican Party woke up to a cascade of finger-pointing
and confusion on Tuesday as the Trump campaign was rocked by
accusations that parts of Melania Trump’s convention speech had been
cribbed from the one that Michelle Obama delivered to Democrats in 2008.
....you have to wonder just who the joke is on here?
Several strip clubs on Bourbon Street have been busted by the
Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control and Louisiana State
Police for activity involving drugs, prostitution and "lewd/immoral
acts," the agencies announced Tuesday morning.
The results of a month-long undercover investigation called
Operation "Trick or Treat" will be released at a news conference this
afternoon.
Names will be released and charges will be discussed by ATC Commissioner Troy Hebert and LSP Col. Mike Edmonson.
On the one hand, maybe it fits with the Disneylandrieu narrative. Mitch is going to Bourbon Street to sanitize it the way Giuliani did Times Sqaure. You know, to make it wholesome enough to please the better people moving in to the new New Orleans. Remember last weekend, wealthy French Quarter property owners approved a new sales tax that helps fund the presence of these State Police officers... along with Sidney Torres who once was known for making everything down there smell "lemony fresh."
Years before his inquiry into the Kennedy assassination, New Orleans
District Attorney Jim Garrison first captured the national spotlight in
late 1962, when he launched a series of raids on French Quarter strip
clubs and bars. Even more extraordinary than the vice raids themselves
was Garrison's verbal feud with Orleans Parish's criminal court judges,
whom he accused of restricting funds for his raids due to their ties to
organized crime.
And that seems kind of appropriate also following on the heels of Oswald Con and, of course, the shocking news that Oswald is, in fact, alive, well, and coaching the football team.
A Fox affiliate in Baltimore aired a segment on Sunday showing
footage from a "Justice For All" demonstration in Washington, D.C. in
which it edited a chant to sound like protestors were shouting "kill a
cop."
"At this rally in Washington, D.C. protestors chanted, 'we won't stop, we can't stop, so kill a cop,'" the WBFF broadcast said.
But the full footage, flagged by Gawker on Monday via C-SPAN, revealed that the chant was "we won't stop, we can't stop, 'til killer cops are in cell blocks."
It looks bad. Remember, my money in the GOP horse race has been on Rudy! for quite some time now. This would seem like a good time to change horses, but I'm not ready to do so just yet because... well... the other horses or so astoundingly lame.
Responding to some council members' concerns that the new inspector general would strut into town and produce scores of arrests, Cerasoli said his goal for the office is "80 percent prevention, 20 percent detection," meaning he will invest the bulk of his resources in rooting out government waste, with the rest focused on criminal investigations.
This means Cerasoli, who literally wrote the book on how these offices function nationwide, believes his office's "preventative" focus should root out most of the opportunities for Dragonesqe government shenanigans before they become prosecutable crimes discovered... perhaps years after the Dragon has left office.
So my question is... is that how it works in New York? Because we all hope to live up to the example set by that sophisticated buffoon-free metropolis some day.
During the recent Louisiana Governor's race, the Gambit Weekly ran one of its more shameful political profiles in which it was posited that Bobby Jindal appealed greatly to young "Gen-Xers" (yes the Gambit still defines Gen-X 30 somethings as "young" I guess that's kind of accurate) because... you know... he's in his 30s and he uses the interwebs and stuff. Meanwhile, Jindal's actual campaign had more to do with his constant harping on his Christian faith and the need for "ethics reform" in Louisiana. I had the darnedest time trying to remember the exact Nirvana lyrics which treated these issues. Ultimately I decided that Clancy Dubos was really making some sort of clever "Gen-X" inspired statement on the futility and meaninglessness of any political endeavor due to the constantly evolving manipulation of symbols and imagery by an unconquerable permanent ruling elite... or to put it another way, Clancy was reminding us that "everything is possible but nothing is real."
But one doesn't have to see Clancy as a subtle critic of popular culture in order to explain the silly "Geek Appeal" article. A more likely explanation holds that although the Gambit styles itself an "alternative" weekly, suggesting that it provides a refreshing counterpoint to other presumably "establishment" media, its actual purpose is to sell targeted advertising to a hip-leaning Yuppie Left demographic. And, honestly, what could be more "Gen-X" than that? The Gambit's business model is akin to "X-treme" marketing campaigns which co-opt the imagery of youthful rebellion and repurpose it towards the hawking of Mountain Dew and Corn Nuts. This situation was, perhaps, best captured by Lisa Simpson who once said of the 90s style outdoor music fest, "Wow! It's like Woodstock, only with advertisements everywhere and tons of security guards." And so the Gambit knows its readers are the kind of people who don't necessarily want to challenge the power structure in a meaningful way... but who kind of dig the superficial accouterments associated with that kind of pose.
Lately the young readers of Gambit and similar "alternative weeklies" across the country have attached themselves to the Ron Paul for President campaign. In New Orleans, several homemade Ron Paul '08 signs adorn telephone posts along Magazine Street where they hit the sweet spot of the grass-roots DIY aesthetic that appeals to the young and hip patrons of that strip's multiple day spas, sushi cafe's, and coffee shops. Ron Paul's campaign is picking up the awesome mojo of Clancy Dubos's "Geek Appeal".
Now, I'm no fan of Ron Paul. But, personally, I couldn't be more pleased with the emergence of his campaign because it sets the table for a tantalizing 3rd party run in the general election which would further feed my self-serving hobby of comparing the 2008 Presidential election to 1968. My model stars Rudy! Giuliani as the ghoulish authoritarian Nixon, Hillary Clinton as the bumbling centrist Hubert Humphrey, and Paul as the insurgent x-factor George Wallace. In '68 Wallace's run exposed a dangerous fault in the old Democratic "New Deal" coalition splintering the working class populist vote along racial and social lines and ushering in a major political realignment which appears to have peaked with the rise and... perhaps... fall of the Rovian neo-cons currently ruining our Constitution and pretty much blowing up the world.
An independent Paul candidacy has the potential to exploit tenuous new faults in the current political alignment. These faults lie between a growing number of Americans who are utterly disgusted by the war and the total failure of both major parties to give voice to this revulsion. Ron Paul is a "libertarian". And as a libertarian he naturally draws racial reactionaries and bubbas and gun nuts and such from the right by selling an anti-all-government orthodoxy as a panacea against all the evils of the world. But he also draws heavily on the Yuppie-Left vote... you know... Gambit readers and such who style themselves quality white people and "independent thinkers" in a very juvenile sense but who are also very tired of the war. The Yuppie Left is talking up Paul right now because.... well because they think it makes them interesting... but also because they don't want to vote for a pro-war Rudy or a... um... a pro-Hillary Hillary. Wallace's demo certainly overlapped with some of Nixon's "law-and-order" constituency as well as pulling "New Deal" votes from the old working class South. It's not the same exact scenario... but I still think there are interesting parallels.
Getting in on the fun this morning is the T-P's James Gill who weighs in with a column about Paul's recent "Guy Fawkes Day" fund raising stunt. Gill helpfully observes that part of the "libertarian" appeal to this age group has to do with their thoroughly buying the ongoing Social-Security- is-hopeless bamboozlement.
It is an article of faith in Libertarian circles that, were the maximum voting age 25, Paul would be the next president. Many young voters apparently fear that they will be forced to pick up the tab for Medicare and Social Security only to find the economy in ruins when their time comes.
To which the predictable libertarian solution is, "Well I never wanted/needed that anyway".
Gill is right about Paul's youth skewing demo and I believe the widespread Soc Sec myth is one reason but not the only reason. It's part of the endemic ahistorisism (ding! new word!) of most Americans who seem to have less and less understanding of how power and politics work with each passing year. Paul has a high appeal with self-styled "hip" yuppies who buy into the Alger-esque line that each of us is independently successful based upon our unique merits alone. And, as we all know, young yuppie types are quite eager to demonstrate the value of their unique merits.
What's particularly funny is the way this ultimately hyper-reactionary brand of capitalism has wrapped itself up in the symbolism of revolutionary populism. The Paulites were well aware of what they were doing when they chose Guy Fawkes Day for their fund raising stunt. Sure, the Guy Fawkes imagery evokes the anti-government meme of the Gunpowder Plot, but it also piggybacks off of the way this imagery has already been borrowed and re-injected into the culture through the popular (among hipster yuppie types) V for Vendetta graphic novel series. In fact, many a Paulite internet stooge incorporates V for Vendetta imagery into his/her graphic iconography.
And so the new libertarian impulse becomes a half-baked fashion statement as well as a dismal political belch which draws equally from the inherent "coolness" of knee-jerk misanthropic distrust of all things "government" and the materialist desire to demonstrate one's individual superiority through the illusory concept of "self-generated" wealth. I suppose that's all well and good if you're Ayn Rand but it's not the most constructive approach to public policy. Of course, given the state of the current polity ( i.e. the morass that is our current untenable Asian imperial venture or our stupid, condescending and unresponsive political elite) one can at least understand... if not buy into... the appeal of eschewing "constructive approaches" for gunpowder plots.
Update: More background on Ron Paul and his nutty nuttiness that the ahistorisist hipsters tend to discount can be found here at Orcinus.
There is a developing school of thought that Christian fundies will fall in line behind Rudy! because he is the most authoritarian candidate available. The most animating issue of the 2008 election will be the right to dissent vs the making the dirty hippies shut the fuck up. Yes, the fundies hate Rudy!'s divorce and his lack of enthusiasm for burning homosexuals and such.. but they hate the dirty hippies even more, and Rudy! really really wants to make the dirty hippies shut the fuck up. But I've been saying this for some time now.
Update: I've mentioned a few times that my pet theory about this election (particularly when I'm on a Rudy! kick) involves drawingcomparisons to 1968. Having said that, does anyone else see a potential Ron Paul indie bid as this year's Wallace?
Here’s how I see it: At this point, Mr. Bush is looking forward to replaying the political aftermath of Vietnam, in which the right wing eventually achieved a rewriting of history that would have made George Orwell proud, convincing millions of Americans that our soldiers had victory in their grasp but were stabbed in the back by the peaceniks back home.
What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.
Except, the way I see this, we've already been through this argument once before. Therefore, the American public will learn to blame the dirty hippies much faster this time around. And, since Rudy! is the most aggressively anti-dirty hippie candidate going, I still think he'll be the next President.
Also, coming soon from the right wing press, "Why Rudy! is the only candidate who can end this war"
Matthews and the rest of the talking heads won't touch the real reason why the allegedly religious, moralistic, family values loving far right seems to be so taken with the urban hedonist, Rudy Giuliani. But it's really not hard to figure. They recognize a kindred spirit, and it's that spirit that animates his crazy talk about terrorism too. He's all about kicking dark-skinned ass and that is an intensely appealing attribute to the GOP base. In fact, when you strip all the marketing and polling and propaganda away, that's what it's all about.
Look it's not that complicated. Rudy is leading.. even among social conservatives.. because he is the candidate most likely to make the hippies shut the fuck up.
Social Conservatives will overlook his slightly more gay/abortion friendly statements because those battles have already been fought and won by George Bush. Bush promised the right he would appoint fundie-friendly judges and he delivered.
In 2008, conservatives want someone to make all the hippies who were right about the war shut the fuck up. Rudy is the guy who will do that for them.
Actually I'm going to stay with Suspect-Device for this post as Greg has also linked to more fun from the Daily Advertiser where apparently the problem is still Jane Fonda.
As I continue in my fascination with the similarities of political climate between the 2008 and 1968 Presidential elections, I thoroughly expect to see more and more of an updated version of the "Stab-in-the-back" myth from Vietnam deployed by Republican candidates over the next year. The GOP candidate best suited to carry this bullying, authoritarian message is Rudy. Presidential elections are multi-layered carnivals of intrigue and sideshow. Health care, immigration, and God-willing, flood recovery will be important points. But the real philosophical juice of the 2008 debate will center around authoritarianism vs what remains of our open society framed by the devastating morass of the war. I expect Giuliani to have the upper hand.. politically, not morally... against any of the leading Democratic candidates should he end up as the GOP nominee.
Yes, Rudy is smarter than Bush. But his political strength -- and he knows it -- comes from America's unrelenting passion for never bothering to take that extra step to figure shit out. If you think you know it all already, Rudy agrees with you. And if anyone tries to tell you differently, they're probably traitors, and Rudy, well, he'll keep an eye on 'em for you. Just like Bush, Rudy appeals to the couch-bound bully in all of us, and part of the allure of his campaign is the promise to put the Pentagon and the power of the White House at that bully's disposal.
Taibbi's point is that Rudy, more than any other candidate, is the inheritor of Bush's legacy. He's certainly the inheritor of Bush's major donors and political advisers. But he's also steeped in the culture of free-market corruption made so famous in Washington by the Bushies and congressional Republicans over the past decade. The contenders for the GOP nomination may be treating Bush's name like kryptonite at the moment, but it is remarkable that the current front-runner seems quite comfortable with the Bush policies and practices that have driven that name to such an untouchable point.
Since my current political theory crush involves comparisons between the elections of 1968 and 2008 (see comments here), I prefer to see Giuliani as Nixon more so than Bush. Not that it's very difficult to get from one to the other mathematically. All you have to do to get to Nixon=Rudy is put the brain back.