For some reason, we're talking about Goofus and Gallant this morning. (Actually, I know the reason, but I'm too discreet to reveal it.)
The origin of Goofus:
"We couldn't have Gallant without Goofus," said Highlights Editor Kent Brown, a grandson of the founders and, he proudly claims, the inspiration for Goofus. "Without Goofus, Gallant would be bland and no one would pay attention. But kids see parts of themselves in both characters. No one is as good as Gallant, and no one is as bad as Goofus. But being more like Gallant is something to strive for."But you could have Goofus without Gallant. That was "Beavis and Butt-Head." Mike Judge (the "he" in this paragraph) explains:
Does that give some insight into why Trump won the election? And why Mitt Romney did not?
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
I'm more of a Calvin and Hobbes guy.
"For some reason, we're talking about Goofus and Gallant this morning. (Actually, I know the reason, but I'm too discreet to reveal it.)"
Tag: Althouse the Tease.
This is a tasty one.
It is also why we like Homer Simpson better than Ned Flanders.
Romney and McCain lost because they believed that Democrats would respect them if they were upright and fair minded.
McCain for example stuck to his pledges about campaign finance he made, while Obama broke his. In this case, Goofus won.
McCain refused to go near the Reverend Wright issue, Obama cut add making fun of McCain's disability and forced Biden to retract his apology about the ad. Goofus won.
And you can't have Davey without Goliath either!
Thought experiment: Picture every presidential election as Goofus vs. Gallant and figure out whether it's true that the Goofus always wins.
Is there a modern equivalent to Highlights magazine?
Is Adams or Jefferson Goofus?
I don't think we had a Gallant this time around either.
So Goofus and Gallant was a Manichean screed?
Forests, trees and the biorhythms of history. There are long cycles in our political history. The Republicans controlled Congress from 1860 to 1932 (72 years), the Democrats from 1932 to 1994 (62 years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
Every generation or so we have a significant presidential election - FDR (1932), Eisenhower (1952), Reagan (1980) and Obama (2008). FDR marked the change from R to D in Congress, IKE ended 20 years of D presidents, Reagan and Obama were insurgents, outsiders.
Obama came a cropper. He was not the change we were waiting for. Romney was the SOS (same old ...). In 2016 we saw two outsiders do extraordinarily well - neither Trump nor Sanders were even tenuously connected with party leadership.
We can discuss what caused the result of the election ad nauseum but net, net, net, history rhymes.
"Does that give some insight into why Trump won the election? And why Mitt Romney did not?"
Yes.
Americans love a dick more than a prick.
"Thought experiment: Picture every presidential election as Goofus vs. Gallant and figure out whether it's true that the Goofus always wins."
Bush v. Dukakis
"Thought experiment: Picture every presidential election as Goofus vs. Gallant and figure out whether it's true that the Goofus always wins."
If you can't figure out who Goofus is, it's you.
Last night I was reading select comments on the Kid Rock story to Mr. Pants and pulled out Chuck's championing of the MI Supreme Court Chief Justice; forgot his name already, something bland and Republican; Young? Anyway I opined that some people don't grasp that we're past Old Bland Boring Responsible Sober Grandpas now. If we wanted that, as a nation, we'd have elected Mitt Romney.
I'm not delighted that we no longer are motivated by character and competence, but here we are.
"Does that give some insight into why Trump won the election? And why Mitt Romney did not?" So the 2008 Gallant was white and Goofus black? Racist!
@Althouse, Carter vs. Ford. Of course Carter was the third worst president in the history of the United States, behind Buchanan and Obama, but ahead of Wilson, Grant, and Harding.
"Gallant only marginally better than Goofus."
I like that! Something about baryon asymmetry, the entire sensible universe being due to marginally more matter than anti-matter.."
Lord! Have not seen those names for well over 60 years.
Mitt Romney the high school bully and dog abuser wasn't Goofus?
Crooked Hillary wasn't Goofus?
Is there a modern equivalent to Highlights magazine?
Sure: Highlights Magazine.
Was Jeb vs Hillary doomed to failure as there was no clear Goofus? Was Adlai Stevenson Gallant and Eisenhower Goofus? Nixon was Gallant with Kennedy but became Goofus to win over the Gallant Humphrey. Great thought experiment.
Bush v Kerry 2004. Battle of the Goofi.
I regard Hillary as more of a Todd Ianuzzi, the hoodlum who was the subject of adoration by Beavis and Butthead. A sociopathic user of others.
“ ... but I'm too discreet to reveal it ...”
There’s a special place in hell for teasers.
“ ... a binary Heaven or Hell ... "
Been there a few times. Both at once.
“... Gallant only marginally better ...”
Sums it up, trading on the margins.
“ ... is antithetical to God's justice ... "
Beats “grotesque” as a theological category.
Intel report today is: heaven is exothermic, hell is endothermic.
And, “I’m stuck in the middle with You.”
In the middle. With this fucking non-binary, analog rheostat.
Without instructions.
As a child I loved making up goofus and galant captions. " Goofus tells his mother she is full of crap. Gallant tells her that perhaps she is reporting the situation incorrectly."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा