The Short Road From Lee Atwater to Paul Ryan

I haven’t had time to listen to the whole thing, but The Nation has an audio of the infamous Lee Atwater interview from 1981 in which he explained the Southern Strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Fast forward — Now Paul Ryan is saying that he and Mittens did not lose the election because voters rejected his policies. They lost the election because of all those “urban” voters.

I think he needs to get a lot more abstract.
 

The Petraeus Fling Thing

The Petraeus resignation doesn’t seem that much of a BFD to me. “Alpha Male Has Affair” is right up there with “Dog Bites Man” or “Cat Catches Mouse” as a shocker. Nor does it shock me that the FBI and DOJ knew about the affair last summer and didn’t say anything to Congress about it. At least one other CIA director was worse.

Since there may be a connection to Benghazi, the righties are certain this affair ties into whatever they think the White House is covering up. Peter King is calling it a “crisis of major proportions.” I guess it’s a nice detraction from post-election soul-searching (nothing found, I hear). Of course, if Petraeus let his guard down and allowed his paramour to see classified information he needs to be called to account for that.

Also, too, people may be going ballistic because they were emotionally invested in Petraeus as a hero. You might remember the way Move On was set upon by howling virtual mobs of Petraeus admirers because of its “Petraeus Betray Us?” ad. Some right-leaning blogs are now calling him “General Betray Us.” I’m not emotionally invested in him at all, one way or another, so the whole thing is kind of a snooze for me. Do wake up up if anything significant happens.

Bernard Finel and Kevin Drum has some interesting observations, if you want to explore the topic further.

Con Artists Getting Conned

I don’t know that I’ve ever recommended reading something at RedState. But this is fascinating — “Campaign Sources: The Romney Campaign was a Consultant Con Job.” It sounds as if some of the consulting firms working for the Romney campaign were just faking it. The article claims they were running a con job on Romney.

They say that the truth is the consultants essentially used the Romney campaign as a money making scheme, forcing employees to spin false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security.

Zac Moffatt, Digital Director for the Romney campaign, was specifically named as having “built a nest egg for himself and co-founder of Targeted Victory, Mike Beach,” and that they “didn’t get social” media and ignored objections from other consultants and staffers in the campaign.

You may have seen some of the criticism of ORCA, a smartphone app that was supposed to be Mitt’s high-tech poll-monitoring system. Apparently it was an epic fail.

Sources also said that arrogance played a big role, saying that the Romney campaign was a hostile battlefield of egos in which these consultants viewed any opposition to their world view as coming from an enemy. This apparently led to the ORCA program “receiving no stress test, no usage during super saturdays and no ability to have a Plan B or C when everything hit the fan.”

“The brain trust of the Romney campaign was so arrogant that they refused to change strategy. It was clear in June were SOL,” said one email.

Another source that closely studied the Obama campaigns GOTV efforts as compared to ORCA said bluntly that “the Obama training manuals made ORCA look like a drunken monkey slapped together a powerpoint” adding that we must duplicate and improve what they accomplished to have any hope for the 2014 & 2016 ground game.

But the failures in what was described as a “tightly wound consultant culture” didn’t stop there.

Stu Stevens of the Stevens and Schriefer Group was said to not be chasing poll numbers with the media buy strategy and appeared instead to be doing little more than “throwing darts at a dartboard.” At best using false numbers provided by ORCA; at worst milking the cash cow of the Romney campaign.

Can’t you just see it? By the way, we won Florida. See also “The Oracle’s Debacle.”

Leeches of the GOP

Aw, heck, let’s gloat some more. It’s a nice change of pace for us.

Somewhere last week I heard a couple of journalists covering the campaigns say that in the days before the election the Romney people were jubilantly confident while the Obama people were hopeful but nervous. Of course, you could also say “deluded” and “realistic,” respectively.

Anyway — by now you’ve probably seen the video clip of Ann Coulter saying “If Mitt Romney cannot win in this economy, then the tipping point has been reached. We have more takers than makers and it’s over. There is no hope.” I infer that Coulter considers herself to be one of the “makers.” But what exactly does she make?

The fact is, Coulter is a professional leech. She is one of several “personalities” who make a good living by leeching off the climate of hate and divisiveness that is the lifeblood of “movement conservatism” and the Republican Party. Every year or so she re-writes the same polemical book and gets it republished under a new title — some variation on Be Afraid: How Liberals Hate God and America and Want to Eat Your Babies. I don’t know who actually reads this stuff, but somebody buys it. Then she does a speaking tour and rakes in fees. Her weekly toxic waste dump of a “column” is still being syndicated. And people still go to her for her “insights” into the direction of conservatism.

But Coulter’s main function within the GOP it to keep pumping the hate so that she can continue to make a living as a leech.

A few days ago Rick Perlstein published an article at The Baffler called “The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism.” Although a bit rambling and unfocused, the article provides a fascinating view of how a culture of leeching has attached itself to “movement conservatism” and the Republican Party. All manner of people are making themselves rich by fanning the flames of alarm and then sucking money out of the rubes who believe them. It’s so blatant that conservative “media” such as Newsmax and Current Events are being subsidized by sucker schemes for Making Big Money Without Actually Having to Do Anything to Earn It.

So you’ve got individuals like Richard Viguerie and groups like the NRA that mostly specialize in fundraising by scaring people. Usually they’re sucking money out of ordinary folks, but we see now that Karl Rove managed to suck money out of the very wealthy, which makes him master of the game, I suppose.

Perlstein describes the standard come-on:

There is the bizarre linguistic operation that turns “liberal” (or, in Coulterese, “pink”) into a merely opportunistic synonym for “stuff you don’t like.” There’s the sloganeering alchemy that conflates political and economic magical thinking (“freedom”!). There’s shorthand invocation of Reagan hagiography. And then, presto: The suggestible readers on the receiving end of Coulter’s come-on are meant to realize that they are holding the abracadabra solution to every human dilemma (vote out the Democrats–oh, and also, subscribe to Mark Skousen’s newsletter for investors, while you’re at it). …

… Miracle cures, get-rich-quick schemes, murderous liberals, the mystic magic mirage of a world without taxes, those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had hidden somewhere in the Syrian desert–only connect.

The Republican Party isn’t just being challenged by changing voter demographics. As long as people with inordinate influence in what’s called “conservatism” are milking it like a cash cow, they’re not going to let it adapt to changing voter demographics.

Right-wing Meltdown

I am surprised at the degree to which the Right seems genuinely stunned to the core about the results of Tuesday’s election. I figured they would just blame the defeat on Romney for not being conservative enough; various scapegoats (Chris Christie; Hurricane Sandy) and voter fraud. And of course, there is a lot of that out there this morning. But I’m also seeing at least some asking bigger questions. Like, What is the fundamental nature of reality?

The right-wing world view is based on a faith in several unsupported assumptions, one of which is that a solid majority of American citizens share their views, and liberal/progressive beliefs are held only by a shadowy elite fringe of egghead academics and aging hippies (never mind that “elite hippie” is something of an oxymoron) plus angry and demanding nonwhites, various “pervents” like gays and feminists, and foreign infiltrators. In the rightie mind, all of those groups added together make a big enough minority to be of concern in a national election, especially with that voter fraud thing going on. But still, a minority.

I hadn’t actually reckoned on how deeply the Right believed that Americans elected Barack Obama in 2008 just for the novelty of the thing — hey look! We have a black president now! — and not because we agreed with his proposals and thought he was the best candidate to handle the job.

Well, rigties, deal with this: We, the majority of American voters, elected Barack Obama because agreed with his proposals, most of ’em anyway, and thought he was the best candidate to handle the job. That was true in 2008 and also true on Tuesday.

It appears (as some had suggested) that Mitt’s calculations for victory assumed that African Americans would not vote in the same numbers as in 2008.

Multiple Romney sources buzzed about one number in particular: 15 percent. According to exit polls, that’s the share of African-Americans who voted in Ohio this year. In 2008, the black percentage of the electorate was 11 percent. In Virginia and Florida, exit polls showed the same share of African-Americans turned out as four years ago, something that GOP turnout models did not anticipate.

“We didn’t think they’d turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us,” said one Romney operative. “It’s unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got ‘em to vote.”

Also, it became apparent that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted farther than Ann Coulter can throw him. Another Republican candidate — although not one that was actually running at any time in the past couple of years — might have won on Tuesday. But the more people looked at Mittens, the more enthusiastic they got about Obama.

The Right’s other big blind spot, of course, is their perception that being a white man is the human default norm. If that’s how one honestly sees the human species, never mind the American electorate, how can one possibly understand what’s going on in the “real world” of the 21st century?

Rich Benjamin writes,

Much of the GOP — think Romney, Mourdock, Akin — cling to a political narrative according to which white male voters are “conservative” and “minority” voters are “liberal,” and where white male voters are self-sufficient and everyone else is dependent. It’s exactly this form of white-on-white racial profiling, a fear of the future, that produced the election’s outrageous comments about unions, the poor, rape, women, minorities and the like.

Why did conservative straight white men self-destruct so spectacularly this election? Perhaps because, in trying to secure the votes of other white men, they failed to notice that these white men have mothers, daughters, gay relatives and/or friends who are racial minorities; and that other white men are suffering economically; and that straight white men can also embody the country’s dramatic change? The cheap, divisive, nativistic, racialized ways that conservative leaders divvy up the electorate has now come to spook them. It’s a vicious loop: What this political narrative does is to fuel a further sense of embattlement and decline among disenfranchised straight white men.

Well, yeah, but it’s also the long-entrenched sense that only the concerns of the default norm — white men — are actually important. Matters that are mostly of concern to those “alt” people are not serious concerns that serious default people need to think about. And that’s how they still think. So when they find themselves in a place in which they have to appeal to “alts” to win an election, the defaults immediately think in terms of putting forward their own tokens — a woman or minority (although one who can be counted on to respect the defaults). Or, they gin up some verbiage that maybe makes it sound as if they care about the well-being of the alts even as the actual concerns of the alts are smugly ignored. For example, the Romneys went around saying that women care more about jobs than about reproductive rights. Hence, this reproductive rights nonsense is just a silly distraction; not something to be taken seriously.

Guess again, Mitt.

The bigger concern for the Republican Party is that their old talking points on just about everything are likely to become increasingly irrelevant over the next four years. The economy is likely to continue to get better (barring a global meltdown), for example. Global warming, alas, is likely to become more real.

In 2016 Obamacare will have been fully in effect for a couple of years, and by then people will have realized the world did not end and, in fact, they kind of like it. Most middle-class people who already had insurance will at least know somebody who finally was able to get insurance because of Obamacare.

The electorate will be more racially diverse, and a larger percentage of voters will be too young to remember the Cold War or even Ronald Reagan. Women are unlikely to decide they no longer need equal pay or reproductive rights.

The Middle East will be a wild card, as will the global economy. Many things could go wrong. But it’s going to be really interesting to see if the Republicans can adjust enough to be viable in 2016. The deny and obstruct thing didn’t work for them. And the “vote for me ’cause I’m the white guy” thing didn’t work for them. Can the old GOP learn new tricks?

Two Corrections

I’ve come to learn that Rachel was mistaken about something last night.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I’ve learned that Rove put money on the Nevada Senate race, where Republican incumbent Sen. Dean Heller defeated Democratic challenger Shelley Berkley. Rove’s groups also donated to Deb Fischer, who defeated Bob Kerrey in the Nebraska senate race. So that’s two wins, not zero. Of course, whether Heller or Fischer would have won without Rove’s money is not something I can measure.

Also, yesterday I said that Karl Rove’s groups all together had about a $300 million warchest to spend on this campaign. I’ve read some articles this morning saying it was closer to $400 million.

See also:

Karl Rove’s election nightmare: Super PAC’s spending was nearly for naught:

Karl Rove was the political genius of the George W. Bush era — the architect of the last Republican president’s two electoral victories. But this week, he may have had the worst election night of anybody in American politics.

Republican Reckoning Begins After Revealing Defeat:

“The billionaire donors I hear are livid,” one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. “There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do … I don’t know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing.”

Loser: Karl Rove

I’m having way too much fun checking out the right-wing bloggers who so confidently believed in the coming Romney wave. I take it I’m not the only one.

One of the biggest losers yesterday was Karl Rove. He didn’t just lose an election; he lost his aura as the guy who could manipulate American politics to his will. He controlled about $300 million dollars; his groups were the largest single outside group trying to swing this election. Big-money donors trusted Karl to give them the outcome they wanted. Karl was the inside guy who could pull the right levers and drive the right wedges and stampede voters to vote for Republicans.

He did not deliver. He didn’t even come close to delivering. All that “smart” money was pissed away.

Karl’s meltdown on Fox News last night wasn’t really about Ohio, or Mitt Romney. It was Karl being stripped naked and shown to be a fraud, and a fool. He obviously was not expecting to lose Ohio. He is not the all-knowing guru of politics after all.

I’ve long thought Karl was overrated. If you look closely at his background, you see that he made his reputation in politics by managing campaigns that picked off Democratic incumbents in southern states by relentlessly smearing them. It was cheap and dirty politics. He became a bogyman to liberals while working for the Bush Administration, yes, but to a large extent he was riding a wave of right-wing ascendency. But that’s over, and so is Rove.