The Outlaw Josie wails
Gee. The news here isn’t that it’s news, the news here is that a Republican admitted it. Kind of.
Clint Eastwood’s act was ‘bad’, Stuart Stevens says
By PATRICK GAVIN | 12/6/12 1:57 PM EST
“To the degree that it was a distraction, it was bad.”
That’s the review by former Mitt Romney campaign adviser Stuart Stevens about actor Clint Eastwood’s controversial performance at this summer’s Republican National Convention. Stevens gave the unsuccessful campaign’s post-game analysis Wednesday night on “The Charlie Rose Show.” …
Ah, but we can rely on qualifications.
Stevens said that choosing to have Eastwood on stage was thought to be a win for the Republicans given the actor’s popularity but spoke slowly and deliberately when pressed by Rose on the campaigns’ reaction to his whacky speech. [sic]
“Eastwood, um, it was very good of him to come out,” said Stevens. “It’s very difficult to get Hollywood people to come out. He felt strongly about this and he wanted to do it. He’s spoken as to why he decided to do what he did.” …
Laying aside the difference between “wacky” and “whacky” (the difference between a joke that slays ‘em and akin to actually slaying them), it ought to be astonishing to us that the notion that “real” reality versus manufactured “reality” is such a battle royal that it is newsworthy — not just Politico, but Reuters pounced on the Charlie Rose interview.
Murderous clowns would be wacky AND whacky
The “official” reality was strictly enforced on “Empty Chair Day” and the coordinated blog swarm of early September (pre-Benghazi). See September 7’s “This Week in Agit-Prop” for details and screencaps.
Clearly, the GOP had fallen into the self-referential bubble reality that so harmed the nation during its ascendance during the Bush II Wars, and the “reality” of the election has become the “unreality” of “the people voted for the status quo,” and “the people voted for divided government” as stooge Hannity was blithering on the radio today. A sober analysis would note that the only thing that retained GOP control of the house was extensive and shameful gerrymandering, where in Ohio, for instance, while the state voted firmly Democratic, only 5 congressional seats out of 19 (2010 Census lost Ohio 2 from 21) are held by Democrats after the election. This was repeated in state after state, with the result that the GOP only lost several seats and not the majority. If 2010 districts had remained in place, the GOP would ALSO be the minority in the House of Representatives.
click to enlarge
That’s the difference between narrative and fact, and the Republican party seems in a vast psychotic break between their self-consoling and comforting fictions and the painful reality of actual results.
The fanatical defense of the Eastwood gaffe is merely an anecdotal example. But the signs are clear that the GOP faithful are beginning to ask themselves whether they’d rather hear pretty stories and continue losing or accept the hard facts and engineer a new consensus that would point to a way back from what is rapidly becoming electoral Siberia. They HAVE lost five out of the last six presidential election cycles on raw numbers.
Which brings us to this cusp, as the party chooses which version of “reality” they’ll embrace as time moves forward.
I have written myself blue in the face about the ancient and venerable human error of governance that exiles facts from narrative and justifies illegal wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Any quick assay of human political history will show that the fall of potentates is nearly always presaged by a preference for “yes men” to actual facts until reality — as is its wont — bites them in the ass and often relieves them of their heads.
Is this a good sign?
Too early to say.
But it’s damned sad that the notion of accepting factual reality is controversial. Or newsworthy.
Not the first time that political narrative has been corrected by reality