We Ought to Get Us Some of That There Reform...

I'm sorry, I know that polls demonstrate Americans are looking for "change" in their government...

But if, like John McCain, you're the most famous Senator from the party that has essentially run the show for the better part of a decade, you look silly running as a reform candidate. Like, very very silly. Like, you can't talk about reality at all, pretty much, because it would work against the case you're building. You have to start making things up, which means that, of course, you'll run into contradictions. The whole argument gets chaotic and confusing, exactly the opposite of what you want. (For more insight into this, one need only watch any given episode of "Mad Men." The best "pitches" are the most straight-forward. Jackie or Marilyn?)

I've watched a lot of GOP Convention coverage this week (hey, it's my job, kinda), and it has felt entirely surreal. Like watching footage of an old political convention in the library. How can Mitt Romney go on and on bashing the "liberal Washington establishment" in 2008? He might as well be railing against the fiscal policies of Josiah Bartlet. Even worse than that, the Republican critique, repeated over and over again at this convention, contradicts itself directly.

Here's a segment of McCain's speech tonight:

"Let me just offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second crowd," McCain declared in his acceptance speech. "Change is coming."

So...the Democrats don't do anything. Okay, fair enough. I actually almost somewhat agree with this argument. The Congressional Democrats have not done a lot of things I would have liked them to do, and they are, in fact, largely about symbolic gestures.

(Bear in mind, I'm upset that they're not doing anything to fight the policies of Republicans like John McCain. But the point still stands.)

But how can you concede that things are bad in this country, requiring a "change," then argue that your opponents don't do anything? Doesn't that mean all the bad things are your party's fault? And, of course, they are. Nancy Pelosi didn't lie Americans into a pointless, unwinnable war while losing track of Osama bin Laden. Harry Reid didn't install clueless lackeys and yes-men in positions of great power, wrecking our ability to protect the public from unsafe products, get people out of harm's way during a massive storm or successfully prosecute federal criminals. And Barack Obama didn't decide we should start torturing people, or spying on their phone calls (though he does sort of seem okay with it after the fact, which sucks).

The Republicans, Romney and McCain in particular, are basically admitting these things are not their fault ("they don't do anything!") before essentially blaming them anyway. Sarah Palin seems to think US Weekly is at fault. And I'm not sure who Giuliani even hates any more - everyone not actually standing inside the Xcel Energy Center?

(Speaking of glaring contradictions, Giuliani mocking Obama for liking big cities? Giuliani was mayor of fucking New York. Obama's from Kansas. He thinks Obama's too cosmopolitan? WTF?)

I know Republicans essentially think their constituents are dumb. They think they can just lie to them over and over again, pretend to care about them and their issues long enough to get into power for a few more years, and then continue to give them the shaft like always. And it usually does work. I sort of disagree. I think that, certainly, a lot of American voters are gullible, and can be convinced through clever speeches and smart politicking to vote against their own interests much of the time.

But gullible people eventually do figure shit out, particularly if you make it kind of obvious that you're messing with them. And that's what tonight's acceptance speech from McCain felt like. The part of the crank call where you kind of can't hold on any more and start making up really ludicrous stuff, hoping the person on the other end catches on so you can just hang up.