Mitt Romney Isn’t Rich Enough? Now He Wants The Hardworking Staff’s Money!

The hardworking staff trundled down to the Global Worldwide Headquarters earlier today to open the old mailbag, and what poured out but a letter from Mitt Romney.

O frabjous day! Calloou! Callay!

The letter started out:

Dear Fellow Republican,

My friends at the Republican National Committee are working hard [!] to hone our plan to win back the White House, strengthen our majority in te U.S. House, and recapture the majority in the U.S. Senate.

We already know what President Obama wants this campaign to be about: anything but his failed liberal record. Now we want to know what hard-working [!] Americans like you want this campaign to be about.

As one of our country’s most active Republicans, you have been chosen to take part in the RNC’s 2012 Presidential Issues Survey . . .

At which point the hardworking [!] staff stopped reading , since the survey is just a ruse to extract money from us, and anyway we’re hardly “one of our country’s most active Republicans,” not to get technical about it.

But the whole “want this campaign to be about” booshwah got us to thinking about this piece from Politico:

The 2012 campaign is the smallest ever

For years, operatives, reporters and potential nominees envisioned the 2012 presidential campaign as a titanic clash of media-swarmed combatants with big ideas about the future. In the Republican primaries, this was almost a mantra: this is the most important campaign in a generation.

So why does it feel so small?

Dating to the beginning of the cycle, 2012 has unfolded so far as a grinding, joyless slog, falling short in every respect of the larger-than-life personalities and debates of the 2008 campaign.

There have been small-ball presidential campaigns before, but veteran strategists and observers agree this race is reaching a record degree of triviality. Nothing previously can compare with a race being fought hour by hour in 140-character Twitter increments and blink-and-you-miss-it cable segments. Not to mention an endless flood of caustic television ads.

(See here for further details on caustic TV spots.)

The consensus was that 2010 qualified as the Seinfeld election, a series of campaigns about nothing.

So what do we call an election about less than nothing?

How about Waiting for Godot.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mitt Romney Isn’t Rich Enough? Now He Wants The Hardworking Staff’s Money!

  1. Coincidentally, I was thinking about this very subject while shredding a DNC survey.

    The problem with this campaign — and the problem for both candidates — is that there’s no real difference between them. Not as far as most people’s lives are concerned, anyway.

    Mitt is trying to convince conservatives he’s a conservative, Obama is trying to convince liberals he’s a liberal, meanwhile both of them will eventually need to convince undecideds in the key states that life would be any different, let alone better, with one or the other of them.

    This election is one tall, skinny, insincere, bank-friendly guy in a suit vs another tall, skinny, insincere, bank-friendly guy in a suit.

    The advantage one of them has is that, as President, he can put his recently-discovered progressivism into effect, while the other can only make speeches about his recently-discovered conservatism.

    • Al says:

      One difference is that one candidate (guess who) would expend a great deal of energy trying to get a national health program off the ground, while the other (rhymes with it) would do whatever he could to kill it. I’d rather have the former as my president.

      • I don’t recall his expending a great deal of effort to get a national health program off the ground. I recall his being the only Democratic candidate who did not endorse it, I recall his being pressured into pursuing it and doing so lukewarmly, and I recall his scuttling the public option when there was no compunction to do so.

        Surely we can all imagine a President pursuing a progressive agenda with “a great deal of energy.” It would look and sound a great deal different than what Mr. Obama has delivered.

  2. Curmudgeon says:

    The difference is in the dogs…one on the roof of a car, and one on a dinner plate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s