November 4, 2014

Greg Orman explains the clown/clown car distinction to Bob Dole.

"I want to assure you that this is not true" — that Orman did not call the 91-year-old Kansan patriarch a clown — "and is not my opinion of you in any way, shape or form. My reference to a 'clown car' was commenting on the near-endless number of political supporters of Senator [Pat] Roberts who have piled out of Washington to support him, none of whom I think are clowns. I certainly wasn't calling you - or any of the others supporting Senator Roberts - a 'clown.'"

For some reason, this makes me want to show you this photo I took back in March 2011:

DSC_0084

Originally blogged under the title: "Everybody wants to take a photo of a man wheeling the large pile of shit that has a 'Hello My Name Is Scott Walker' sign stuck in it." I'm thinking of saying something like: There, it's clear that the man means to say, Scott Walker is shit. He's not simply a man riding in on a shit wagon. He is a pile of shit, being wheeled around on a small vehicle that may or may not be specifically purposed as a shit wagon. And even if that were a shit wagon, it wouldn't mean that if any given person were to take a ride on the shit wagon, that would make him shit. When you take a hay ride on a hay wagon, that doesn't make you hay.

But then, who rides in a clown car other than clowns? And what makes a car a clown car aside from its being full of clowns? There's no specifically purposed vehicle known as a clown car. It's just a Volkswagen Beetle or some other such small car.

Now, I do get Orman's point. "Clown car" was a funny way to refer to a seemingly endless supply of surrogates that the GOP sent into Kansas to help Roberts, and there is something ludicrous about a candidate who depends too heavily on surrogates. So there's deniability. But, come on, Orman called Bob Dole a clown.  He handed Roberts a gift there, he knows it, and he had to walk it back. Ludicrously.

IN THE COMMENTS: CWJ said "Althouse, The candidate's name is Greg Orman not Gary." Corrected. Thanks. I must have confused him with Gary Oldman.



AND: Rejham said: "'Greg Orman, not Gary.' Ha! Gary Orman was great on Laugh-in though..." Oh, yeah. Gary Owens...

52 comments:

rehajm said...

He seems upset Roberts has friends. It's not like he can have a clown car of full of Democrats supporting him, can he? It must be lonely being an independent.

Original Mike said...

"My reference to a 'clown car' was commenting on the near-endless number of political supporters of Senator [Pat] Roberts who have piled out of Washington to support him, none of whom I think are clowns."

So it's a clown car, but none of the occupants are actual, you know, clowns. Got it.

Curious George said...

Thank you for the reminder of what assholes the protesters were.

Mark said...

Well, Orman expects people to buy the idea that he isn't a Democrat. How is this any more ludicrous?

Henry said...

The funniest sentence in Orman's apology is the one that precedes his defense: The remark the Roberts' campaign is quoting has been deliberately taken out of context.

That no-good Roberts campaign knows I don't think clowns ride in clown cars, and yet they have deliberately claimed that I do. My whole political life is dedicated to the fact that clowns don't ride in clown cars and anyone who takes even a minute to examine my positions knows my opinion about clown cars.

traditionalguy said...

He is clowning around pretending to be an independent that can join whichever party wins the majority, but he scorns politicians acting like clowns.

David said...

Bob Dole is actually too old to run for president now (as opposed to supposedly too old when he actually ran.) Too Bad. He would have been a good one.



Bob Ellison said...

As a clown, I am offended. "None of whom I think are clowns" implies that Orman thinks there's something shameful about clownness.

Also, Washington is a really big clown car. We clowns could pile billions of clowns in a place like that without any trouble, and then pile out into Virginia, Maryland, and other environs.

Clownity is something to which no shame attaches.

PB Reader said...

It's just a redefinition of words that Democrats do all the time. A clown car is not a clown car until it is but then it's not.

It's just a new model of car from Government Motors featuring the horn outside the driver's window with a big squeeze bulb! It saves energy and promotes car-pooling!

Brando said...

Bob Dole's loss was a perfect example of an honorable man being beaten by a dishonorable scoundrel. The shame of it is I think he would have made a good president.

He didn't have a chance though--in '96 it was a good year to be an incumbent president, and Clinton was a skillful if sleazy politician. The economy was good--not that presidents should get credit for that, but they do--and the GOP did a lot in Congress to alienate the middle, allowing Clinton to triangulate (tossing gays under the bus, pissing off the Left with welfare reform, and backing off health care once it looked ugly). Dole was the right man at the wrong time.

Michael K said...

The whole Democrat-Orman thing arrived in a clown car in Kansas.

PB Reader said...

Isn't this an example of Orman's racism/classism/sexism or something?

Only a true clown can call a car a clown car and Orman wouldn't admit he's a clown!

CWJ said...

Althouse,

The candidate's name is Greg Orman not Gary.

tim maguire said...

It is a funny image, but if you're not prepared to say the people coming out of the clown car are clowns, then you need another image.

garage mahal said...

Kansas is so broke they are selling sex toys to generate revenue. We're not far behind ya Kansas!

Jim Hu said...

Greg Orman, not Gary.

CStanley said...

This post should have a "civility shit wagon" tag.

RecChief said...

Let's see, Walker as Hitler; Walker as a pile of shit; Kleefisch gives blow jobs in exchange for votes and "pulled a train", any others?

Walker pushed a policy of fiscal responsibility, that a person can reasonably disagree with or agree with. In fact, if the facts are on your side, it's easy to make an argument in opposition to his policies.

Yet the left resorts to the above.

Who is divisive again?

lemondog said...

Hertz Rent-A Clown-Car in Pennsylvania with B. Obama, B. Clinton, M. Obama...

CWJ said...

rehajm,

Not that lonely. He spent a gazillion dollars advertising as much as anyone else even during the spring primaries when he didn't have an opponent.

To my knowledge, he's never once claimed that his is a grassroots campaign funded by the little people. So he's got "friends" all right. I wonder who they are, and what he owes them?

rehajm said...

Greg Orman, not Gary.

Ha!

Gary Orman was great on Laugh-in though...

tshanks78 said...

Greg Orman + Gary Oldman = Gary Orman

Boltforge said...

Orman is running with the Obama plan. Just make sure everyone knows nothing about you.

Call Dole a clown and then claim you didn't. Apologize to him and then claim you didn't. Be a Democrat and claim you are an "independent".

Do anything and everything to remain a blank slate to get elected. Orman just needs a complicit press to help pull him across the finish line.

And he definitely has a complicit press.

Brando said...

I don't see Orman pulling this one out--Kansas is pretty red, and it's clear Orman would vote with the Democrats (if the Democrats pull their own candidate, and the Indy won't promise to caucus with the GOP, then he's caucusing with the Dems). Plus, far as I know, Roberts isn't tied to any real scandals.

What's missing here to explain Orman doing so well in the polls? Are respondents just saying they'll vote for him to give the GOP a wakeup call?

CWJ said...

Althouse,

Now that's funny, and confusion is easy to do! Just yesterday I admitted years ago often confusing Roddy and Malcolm McDowell

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Kansas is so broke they are selling sex toys to generate revenue. We're not far behind ya Kansas!"

Of course this is bullshit. But I'm sure you can figure out where to get one...make that "another one."

CWJ said...

Brando,

Orman may very well win. He has consistently run a version of campaign Obama version 2008. His appeal has been nothing more than Washington's broken and neither party is willing to fix it. Therefore we need to elect partyless problem solvers, and I'm the man. This appeals to the middle and even those on the right who are disgusted with politics. He has never once advocated an identifiable position or shown an example of a problem he has solved, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Is Roberts were a more energetic candidate, Orman wouldn't stand a chance. But Roberts is old and doesn't seem to have any recent senatorial accomplishments to point too. His only message seems to be the "R" after his name.

I'm glad I don't have to vote for either one of them.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Has Orman decided yet which clowns he is going to caucus for?

mccullough said...

It's clowns all the way down

RecChief said...


Is Roberts were a more energetic candidate, Orman wouldn't stand a chance. But Roberts is old and doesn't seem to have any recent senatorial accomplishments to point too. His only message seems to be the "R" after his name.


The primary with Wolfe hurt him too. I think Wolfe should have been the nominee, but not meant to be I guess.

Brando said...

"Orman may very well win. He has consistently run a version of campaign Obama version 2008. His appeal has been nothing more than Washington's broken and neither party is willing to fix it. Therefore we need to elect partyless problem solvers, and I'm the man. This appeals to the middle and even those on the right who are disgusted with politics. He has never once advocated an identifiable position or shown an example of a problem he has solved, but that doesn't seem to matter."

I understand the bipartisan appeal, but in the heat of a campaign the candidate has to come down on certain issues. I see how Obama pulled it off in 2008--no real record to belie his argument that he'd be post-partisan, and a GOP campaign that just seemed "tired"--as well as the 8-year itch against the GOP.

Kansas though seems like a pretty red state--maybe the troubles Brownback is having are affecting the Senate race. I guess unlike a lot of states, Kansas has a depressed GOP.

If Orman is serious about caucusing with the party controlling the Senate, it'll be moot because the GOP is going to have enough seats to control the chamber even without him.

Hagar said...

I do not like the looks of Mr. Orman, nor what has been reported of what he says, and I hope Kansans hold their noses and vote one more time for Pat Roberts.

RecChief said...

If Orman is serious about caucusing with the party controlling the Senate, it'll be moot because the GOP is going to have enough seats to control the chamber even without him.

Except his whole operation is run by Democrats. Orman came out and said he would caucus with the majority party. If you were the Senate Republicans, would you trust him with any information that would want to keep from teh Democrats?

Original Mike said...

Can the Republicans refuse to accept him in their caucus? It would seem they could.

CWJ said...

Brando wrote,

I understand the bipartisan appeal, but in the heat of a campaign the candidate has to come down on certain issues.

You'd think so, but Orman has stayed on (non)message all the way from start to finish. Incurious press may be one reason. However, whenever someone trays to pin him down or worse claim he supports/opposes x y or z, his reply has always been that it's typical Washington trying to attack or smear him while our real problems go unaddressed. It's infuriating but seemingly effective.

Brando said...

"Except his whole operation is run by Democrats. Orman came out and said he would caucus with the majority party. If you were the Senate Republicans, would you trust him with any information that would want to keep from teh Democrats?"

I certainly wouldn't trust him with anything. Their best bet is to treat him as they would any centrist Democrat--welcome his support on any issues he breaks from the Dems on, but consider him unreliable which is still better than reliably in Reid's pocket.

I predict the GOP will control 51 seats after today, with a possibility of two more with the GA and LA runoffs. If Orman wins, it won't swing the Senate.

Of course, if I'm wrong and a couple seats go the other way, get ready for a few months of chaos.

Hagar said...

Let the lawsuits and recounts begin!

RecChief said...

haha I just checked the facebook pages of some of my liberal friends. This could be a long day for some people.

Unfortunately, one of them, who went to a well respected university, seems to be fairly intelligent, is posting things like "Joni Earnt makes my skin crawl" "she's evil, she probably gives the Koch brothers lap dances" "If Iowa elects Ernst, Iowans should just commit mass suicide and get it over with" and on an on. I'm going to have to cut ties with this person. Not because she's a Democrat, but anyone who can become this unhinged needs help that I can't supply.

Hagar said...

In today's environment, and this guy openly states he will caucus with whatever party wins the majority in the Senate?

Presumably also where he can offer his vote to the highest bidder to make the magical 50th or 51st vote?

Is not this a new low for a senatorial candidate ever?

Danno said...

Orman's clowns, if they were summoned, would arrive by clown-plane, otherwise known as Air Force One.

Brando said...

"In today's environment, and this guy openly states he will caucus with whatever party wins the majority in the Senate?

Presumably also where he can offer his vote to the highest bidder to make the magical 50th or 51st vote?

Is not this a new low for a senatorial candidate ever?"

I don't know--it sort of signals not being ideologically beholden to either side. If you were truly in the middle of the road, no more pro-Democrat than pro-GOP, and you had to caucus in order to get committee assignments, you'd have good reason to simply say you're going to go to the highest bidder.

It beats those party switchers who claim to have changed their ideology on a dime (cough cough, Charlie Crist).

Ann Althouse said...

"Now that's funny, and confusion is easy to do! Just yesterday I admitted years ago often confusing Roddy and Malcolm McDowell"

Tell me about it. I can never remember Ted Nugent. I always think Todd Rundgren, and then I'm stuck. I know it's not Todd Rundgren. Don't say Todd Rundgren again and embarrass yourself. Now, think. Who is that guy you always call Todd Rundgren and embarrass yourself. I had to ask Meade.

I was all: Who's that rock guy with the guns and the meat?

Ann Althouse said...

Hello, it's me.

RecChief said...

Garry Owen?

RecChief said...

Garryowen

RecChief said...

Tom Brokaw: They are thinking that they would like to have Washington get something done. And the question is not just which party can get it done, but how can they change the tone in Washington so they can work together. I was listening to Governor Haley Barber a moment ago and no one is shrewder in the Republican Party than Haley. Last week Senator Portman from Ohio was talking about the agenda for the Republicans if they gain control over the Senate. The question then is what are they prepared to give to the Democrats to meet them at middle ground? What they are going to do about immigration? What are they are going to do about the minimum wage?

This is why it's never over. This election is a referendum on Obama's policies, which are really Reid/Pelosi's policies, which are the left wing of the Democrat Party (all that's left), and here Brokaw is asking what parts of the left agenda the GOP is going to pass?

CWJ said...

In my youth, I joked that the perfect campaign would consist of nothing more than "If elected, I will embrace good things and eschew bad things."

Greg Orman is my joke come to life. We shall see if it's successful.

Hagar said...

There may have been times when the differences between the parties were small and local issues predominant - such times do not get much written about them - but this year is not such a time any more than 1860 was.

To campaign on selling your state's vote to the highest bidder at such a time is a strong indication that you yourself are for sale - and your state's interest might not be a factor.

RecChief said...

Joe Biden talks about Greg Orman

CWJ said...

Hagar,

Here's the thing. Orman has not campaigned on this. Althouse commentators may be aware of some statement that he would caucus with the majority party, but not me.

From my Kansas City vantage point, I've viewed probably 100% of his ads and nearly all that our local tv news has said about him. But this is the first I've heard about such a statement. If true, I suspect that less than 5% of Kansans are aware of it.

tim in vermont said...

"If elected, I will embrace good things and eschew bad things."

I heard an ad today where the politician "supported policies that impacted local communities."

No, there was not more context.

Michael K said...

"you yourself are for sale - and your state's interest might not be a factor."

That was the deal that put Obamacare over the top. The Louisiana purchase and the cornhusker kickback.