My theory is that this is a tell and that what it really indicates is anxiety about there only being one candidate on the Democratic side. The "clown" idea is usually expressed as "clown car." That is, it's a way to say there are an awful lot of individuals crammed into a space that shouldn't be able to hold so many.
But this morning I'm seeing "clown show," which either assumes we know the "show" is the old car routine or hopes to get away with simply portraying Republicans as ridiculous:
"The Koch brothers try to rein in the GOP presidential clown show." (A WaPo headline for an article that doesn't contain the word "clown." This article currently ranks #1 on WaPo's "most read" list.)
ADDED: Remember the time Obama was portrayed as a clown? It was a time of outrage!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
The desperation of the Democratic smear machine. It will get worse before it gets better.
Click bait for WaPa readers: Call the GOP Clowns. Hilarity ensues.
Demecrats know alot about clowns.
After all, they ran congress like a three ring circus.
To me the only unique thing about this cycle's GOP candidates is the anticipated number of them and the fact that none of them dominate the field. The addition of "no chance in hell" candidates (Trump, Fiorina, Carson) as well as longshot candidates (Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz) isn't unique to this cycle or the GOP--in 2004 the Dems had freaking Al Sharpton bigotting his way into debates, and Dennis Kucinich floated in there as well.
I'd expect this group of over 20 potentials to thin out by the time the voting starts, but then with outside money and the benefits of media attention we may see a lot of them ride well into the primaries. Provided the eventual winner isn't kneecapped by then, it could benefit the GOP--keeping the Clintons from having a single person to smear, and getting media attention on the GOP (which would be wise to find ways by then to present its key issues to mainstream voters so as to benefit from the attention, rather than leave vast numbers saying "ugh, I'll go with the Democrats by default!").
I'm still baffled why the Kochs are trying to corrupt and buy democracy when Democrats fat cats like Tom Steyer spend over 14 times more than them but are as pure as the wind-driven snow.
At least the Republican candidates aren't out-of-touch dullards. Shame Dems cannot say the same.
It's not easy to be a Koch brother without cursing the candidate you favor. The solution is to favor several, but that dilutes the donor's aid.
This started about three weeks ago. I have had several lefty friends cackle about clown cars. They stop when I remind them that their one candidate will be opposed by only one of the clowns.
"The desperation of the Democratic smear machine. It will get worse before it gets better."
It's not desperation, it's using a time-tested strategy that will likely be very effective. Just as it has in the past.
The site 'Naked Capitalism' uses it practically every day in their 2:00PM Water Cooler posts.
I'm now seeing other 'left' bloggers using it.
It's probably the Journolisters at it again. I can see their Think Tank saying, "Call the GOP Candidates Clowns."
@Michael, good one. I trust you'll let me borrow it?
The vast left-wing conspiracy is going to be met head-on by a vast "right-wing conspiracy" consisting of ordinary people who believe that politicians should not be so blatantly corrupt. I wonder who'll win?
What an embarrassing headline for the The Washington Post. We all talk about the media being biased. But that headline is so bad! Name-calling, hostility, and pure childishness.
Imagine if our court system operated this way! Marbury v. Dummy. It's unthinkable. Did you not stop and think about the damage to your own credibility?
The Democrats can't have a clown car because they have only one candidate and Hillary can't drive.
I am Laslo.
Better to talk about clowns than a field that includes a former mayor of Baltimore who ran the police force like a Batman villain, the commie from Vermont, and the Material Girl "They don't give me proper credit I just let them be."
his started about three weeks ago. I have had several lefty friends cackle about clown cars.
Are journalists conspiring to work the term "clown" into coverage of the Republican primaries? It seems a rather odd and unusual word to appear over and over. How common is it? How widespread is this?
If the latter, this is newsworthy, very newsworthy. It is a journalism scandal, is it not? If journalists are participating in a scheme to attack the Republican party? If they are conspiring to subvert the news and influence elections? Not a crime, but certainly bad. Certainly something that many of us would consider a scandal. And to have several individuals do this across media?
"That's a clown question, bro."
It might be too early to use the word "Clowngate." Or "follow the money." But as George Stephanopoulos has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Clintons, we might ask if any money could possibly flow the other way.
Is Hillary Clinton too honest, too upright, to give money to people in order to influence them?
And is our "watchdog media," our fourth estate, are they too honest to accept any money from the Clintons?
I would like to think bribing journalists is unthinkable. And yet, now that I think about it, I don't recall any stories in the media about journalists being bribed by politicians. Maybe there are stories, but I don't recall any. Is that because journalists are unique and honorable individuals who are above reproach? Or because the media has an institutional bias, and so they aren't interested in stories about their own corruption?
The WaPo is engaging in projection. Common liberal malady.
A high-ranking executive where I worked once received an application to clown school that some disgruntled employee signed him up for, according to a disgruntled employeee I used to know.
I don't know if you can still do this. Perhaps there are no longer clown schools.
Dana Milbank.
Roger SImon
" It is a journalism scandal, is it not? If journalists are participating in a scheme to attack the Republican party?"
No, it's just another Tuesday.
Politico
Washington Post
Daily Kos
Real Clear Politics
Huffington Post
MSNBC
Chicago Tribune
Maybe Dana Milbank just has cars on the brain.
There could be corruption, of course. I mean, a Clown car blog and a Clown Car Facebook group. Maybe Milbank used the phrase in an innocent way. But then the Clinton machine kicked in and started throwing money around.
Milbank is a columnist. But that WaPo headline? That's supposed to be a news story.
Remember the time Obama was portrayed as a clown? It was a time of outrage!
And well it should have been. He was a Pinocchio!
They are using "clown" as a counter-balance for the "C" word that is implicit in their headlines about Hillary: "Criminal".
It can be very, very hard to do journalism, to be fair and objective. I've written a book on abortion. I tried to do journalism. I struggled with my own emotions, my own passions, my sense of outrage. It can be hard to contain all that stuff, and remain unbiased.
But "clown car"?
I understand using words like that on the internet, in casual conversation. I understand mocking people, and how fun that can be. But when you're attempting a serious work of journalism, isn't it obvious you can't do that?
Maybe it's just really bad journalists who have no concept of their own responsibility.
I would just ask, cui bono? Who benefits?
That answer is obvious. Hillary Clinton.
See also "seven dwarfs" from 1988. Was George Bush involved with that?
It seems rather likely, in retrospect, no?
Ann Althouse wrote: "This article currently ranks #1 on WaPo's "most read" list."
Most people don't read essays about politics. Most people don't read WaPo. Most people are bored and tired of the whole piss-fest.
The 1% who reads pushes the essay to the top. That convinces the people writing, editing, writing headlines for, and publishing this shit that it's important.
Speaking of clown shows, Hillary has practically become a mime.
"Call the GOP Clowns. Hillary ensues."
FIFY.
"And the Kochs aren’t the only ones trying to do this winnowing. Fox News, which always keeps the long-term interests of the Republican Party in mind..."
You've got a blog on the Washington Post site. You pretend to be an opinionator with a speck or two of journalism-- nay, a journalist with a speck of analyst.
Next up: Madonna May Never Have Been a Great Singer!
Are journalists conspiring to work the term "clown" into coverage of the Republican primaries? It seems a rather odd and unusual word to appear over and over. How common is it? How widespread is this?
This is the same that was heard on mic conspiring to make sure Romney answered a question they wanted. Zero evidence exists that they ever did anything remotely the same to Dems. Ditto difficult social questions: Republicans are forced to opine on gay marriage incessantly, but Dems are virtually never asked about abortion (even when the head of the party says there should be zero limitations on abortion, which nobody rational agrees with).
What's a clown car doing with reins anyway?
My feeling is, that the President and Vice President are no longer needed. The Courts and Congress have pretty much made a third branch redundant.
I say, get rid of them, and create a Prime Minister who is there to greet and meet foreign dictators and heads of state. Have the Senate elect them.
Far more notable than the GOP "clown car" (which in a way is a healthy thing--several potential viewpoints and constituencies represented--and only a problem if the candidates get nasty and outrageous in a way that the Dems can hope) is the Democrats' side of things. Here they have a president who is still popular within their party, and yet rather than the front-runner being a close ally of his they seem adamant in nominating his old rival. Okay, that alone isn't so strange--but this rival also happens to have serious ethical challenges (even by the admission of the Left) and is the poster-woman for high-end bribery. She also has the following negatives:
1) Locked in deep with big Wall Street interests and crony capitalists at a time when the Dems want to push populist policies.
2) Terribly dull public speaker, comes off prickly and annoyed in interviews. At best she seems fake when trying to appear pleasant.
3) No political instincts, and determined to listen to the worst possible advice.
4) Even has the Democrat-friendly press turning on her.
5) A long record of incompetence to the point that very few of her supporters can point to any accomplishment.
All this, and the party is STILL parting the waves for her to waltz in, as though she somehow "earned it". (Note--if you think you "earned" the right to be president, then you should never be president as you're dangerous) Everyone on the Left has been cowed by the Clintons, even her "official" opposition, Bernie Sanders, refuses to treat her with anything but the softest of kid gloves.
What have the Clintons done? Did they threaten murder or something? I've never seen a party so resigned to the inevitable.
Sadly, the "clown car" may be this country's only hope.
My own journalism was quite bad this morning. That WaPo article is a blog post, not a news article. Ditto with Roger Simon at Politico.
That's a good example of getting mad and not checking my facts carefully. It doesn't seem like journalism because they're not trying to do journalism.
Still, that line between journalism and opinion seems rather blurry, especially on the internet. The words "Washington Post" is very big on that article, and "blog" is very tiny.
It's no more conspiracy than Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's group-think. Journalists are pretty stupid, on average. If everyone at lunch starts saying the sky is purple, then it's purple, and that will pop up in all of the newspapers, magazines, and TV newscasts.
Women are clown cars, biologically speaking.
The meme for Clinton, Inc. 2016 seems to be Hillary is the mature and tested adult crook who tells all the lies we like told to us. The voters will not turn down a sure thing like that for clowns that no one really knows.
That "seven dwarfs" thing was all over the media. Really surprising, that amount of hostility to the Democrat potential nominees. From liberal media!
How did that meme build? Who started it? Who kept it going?
I was not particularly political in 1988. I was not a low information voter, but I wasn't paying a lot of attention. I don't even remember who they were, except for Dukakis. All I remember is "seven dwarfs."
How would a political campaign build that sort of narrative in the media? Because it seems to me incredibly devastating, if you can pull it off.
For instance, why is that article the #1 article on the "most read" list? It's crap. The article itself is stupid.
But couldn't a campaign set up a lot of dummy accounts and e-mail an article to those accounts and drive it to the top of the "most read" list?
I have noticed that. Thanks, Althouse, for highlighting it.
The Democrats have coulrophobia:
The symptoms of coulrophobia include nausea, increased heartbeat, sweating and even feelings of dread or fear.
They are clearly afraid of 2016 as well.
My long time view is that you can often see what the Dems are most worried about by looking at what they are accusing the GOP of. In this case, as others above have pointed out, their one candidate is, by far, the most clownish, of all those running (so far - Al Sharpton could still throw his hat in the ring).
- she complained about being broke when her husband left office, and then they turned around and earned enough to be in the top 1% w/I the first week of the year, with one speech each.
- she started her campaign by racing around Iowa at 95 mph in her black Scubie van meeting with normal voters, who all turned out to be Dem party activists and workers. Then she came back last week, in her replacement Scubie van, but still driving 95 mph, but this time to get to a fund raiser.
- turns out she ran her own server when Sec of State, instead of using the legally required State Dept. Email. She then deleted everything that she didn't think was relevant. Claimed that nothing classified was stored on her server. But some of the emails sent from there to Congressional investigators were heavily redacted.
- all the hilarity from the Clintons trying to justify why only 10% or so of the hundreds of millions that have gone to their foundations, etc, have actually been spent on charity.
- daughter Chelsea, who could possibly play a clown w/o makeup, is turning out to be her mother's daughter in terms of arrogance.
The list goes on. The Republican field, collectively, can not compete.
Here they have a president who is still popular within their party, and yet rather than the front-runner being a close ally of his they seem adamant in nominating his old rival.
Indeed. Though I do not know how "adamant" they are about nominating his "old rival" - they just don't have anyone else.
The first part of the sentence though; that is odd. It does seem that there is just Obama - and perhaps Velerie Jarret, but she is not a politician running for office. I cannot think of another case when the president had no known friends or associates among the politicians.
It is peculiar and perhaps something to wonder about.
Come to think of it - even the people he golfs with seem to be athletes he has seen on TV or read about in the sports pages.
"Though I do not know how "adamant" they are about nominating his "old rival" - they just don't have anyone else."
It seems that way, but imagine if Hillary did step down right now--the Dems would see a bunch of candidates emerge (Warren, Booker, Hickenlooper, Mark Warner, Joe Biden). They may not be rock stars, but someone would get the nomination. What's odd is how many Democrats seem resigned to going with Hillary, despite her weaknesses even from the POV of the Democratic base. I always thought it was due to the Clintons "freezing out" donors, advisers and candidates, but can't imagine them having the sway to do that if the party wasn't already cowed.
"The first part of the sentence though; that is odd. It does seem that there is just Obama - and perhaps Velerie Jarret, but she is not a politician running for office. I cannot think of another case when the president had no known friends or associates among the politicians."
Obama is introverted, but I'd figure in any other cycle a president who isn't unpopular in his own party (and Obama still polls pretty well among Democrats) would have his unofficial favorite--maybe his VP (Biden's old and embarassing, but next to Hillary isn't so ridiculous) or political allies like Deval Patrick or a young popular Senator like Cory Booker. True, Clinton is his former Sec of State, but it's no secret they've been frosty to one another and he owes her nothing.
Don't think so. Obama caucuses with the Democratic Party, but he is not one of them.
There is only him, he, and his shadow.
If he was interested in politics, he would not give a speech at the Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremony telling the cadets that their most important task will be to "fight climate change," and if he had friends and associates in politics, they would not let him do it.
This is some staffer being told to whip him up a speech for this photo-op, and they don't even bother to screen it before going with it. All they want is the sound and the visuals for public consumption. The important work is being done out the back door.
Embrace individual diversity. No? They're so monolithic.
General agreement there is no point in voting in the primaries if you are a loyal Democrat, So why wouldn’t a politically active, and passionate D create some Rush type chaos?
Here in Missouri we have open primaries so you just ask for a ballot that is either D or R.
Would the candidate these passionate democrats choose to stealth-support be:
a) The weakest candidate of the Republican pool?
b) Hillary’s chosen opponent that she would poll against most favorably in a general election?
c) The most conservative candidate?
d) The candidate that liberals hate the most?
Problem with a) is that there could be 3-4 candidates that are at the very bottom of the polls, if you boost one by a couple of points you have just rearranged the second tier, you would change the results of the primary, but not the outcome.
b) Seems like the smartest choice, if that could be coordinated with lefty proxies and website and journolists, and if you could have a real get out the vote drive, but if you are not impacting the result then your vote would still be meaningless, unless….
…you go with c) or d) in which case your vote would have meaning, you would have the pleasure of destroying that evil R party from the inside.
My prediction is that there will be surprising strong support for the most conservative candidates in blueish states with open primaries.
My further prediction is that Hillary will screw it up and fail.
Maybe adding a couple of more humorous points about the Clinton clan:
- husband Bill palling around and flying on a private jet to the private island of a convicted pedophile, with underage girls along for the ride.
- same husband explaining their money grubbing ways by pointing to how expensive their lifestyle is.
- Hillarity! giving Putin the reset switch when she was Sec of State.
I almost have to figure that there are so many Demoperatives with bylines who have picked up this meme about the Republican field,is that they are starting to understand that they are backing the clown candidate, with more things to laugh at than the entire Republican field combined. They are the ones backing the clown candidate. And, yes, the Republican candidates are one of the strongest classes we have seen for either party, which these Dem operatives are desperate to take down (but keep failing).
To get back to the thread:
Perhaps both parties could agree to scrap the debates this time?
They both would seem to better off without it for this go-around, and personally I would like to see them gone forever.
Lincoln-Douglas debates with a couple of deputies around in case anyone should decide to get rowdy is fine, but these TV spectacles in the hope that it should turn out to be another Kennedy-Nixon rout for the Democrats are farcical.
"Perhaps both parties could agree to scrap the debates this time?"
I'd like to keep them, but change them so it's not a weak-tea joint press conference with scripted questions and answers like we've been getting. They're pointless the way they are.
Instead, let the candidates ask each other questions directly, and add questions that they couldn't possibly prepare for. And when the candidate answers teh question they wish they were asked instead of teh one they were actually asked, the moderator hammers away at the actual question.
And Candy Crowley is forever barred.
A free-for-all between 20 candidates on the Republican side is not likely to be productive, nor is Hillary! asking herself questions on the Democrat side, or - for that matter - a "Hello man! Axhandle!" routine with Bernie Sanders.
And in the end, if Hillary! goes up against Marco Rubio, she is not going to be the Kennedy.
Sensitivity training is mandatory nowadays for clowns.
I meant for the general--a one on one. For the primaries the debates are pointless.
As for Sanders - looks like he was being told today to back off, with the article suggesting that his wife engaged in fraud when running a college in Burlington. They appear to have borrowed a lot of moneytoexpand the school based on bogus donation figures. Of course, it is expected that the Clintons engage in fraud and the like...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा