News & Politics

Rightbloggers Declare Democratic Convention a Failure — Which May Be Why It Succeeded


A week after the party of Kang had their national convention, the party of Kodos had theirs in Charlotte, NC. It was a lively affair, with a floor fight strong-armed by party bosses, and big speeches by Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama, Sandra Fluke, and some guy running a crap economy who nonetheless now finds himself enjoying a nice post-convention bounce.

If you wonder how that came to be the result, you might consider who Obama is running against — or, better still, consider the reactions of rightbloggers, which show even more clearly why ordinary Americans may find the conservative alternative, as presently articulated by these spokespeople, difficult to embrace even under the worst of circumstances.

The fun started early, with some of the brethren predicting the Dem soiree would be plunged into chaos by Obama’s mortal enemies, the Clinton family.

To be fair, they were encouraged in this by some shit-stirring regular media outlets. “Democrats Wait, Nervously, On Clinton Speech,” claimed Ben Smith at BuzzFeed, who reported unnamed Democrats worried that “any private strategic differences” between Clinton and Obama “might play out in public… as Obama’s aides wait on the speech draft, they aren’t concealing just a touch of nerves.” Politico identified Bill Clinton as a “landmine” for the Democrats, who might “speak just a bit too candidly about Obama,” in which case “Republicans will be ready to pounce.”

It was a good way for story-hungry reporters to keep the public interested — but who knew the rightbloggers, who normally profess mistrust of lamestream media sources, would take it hook, line and sinker? “I’d say Obama should not trust Bill Clinton,” Ann Althouse wrote. “Hillary has too much to gain from an Obama loss.” “Bill will be there, and could throw a monkey wrench into things,” said The Lonely Conservative. “Let’s hope so.” “Clinton Praises Romney,” said Scared Monkeys. “…Really, does Obama want a Democrat that is more popular, more of a leader and more of a success as President speaking at this event?… No one is going to buy Clinton praising Obama’s policies and the economy is moving forward.” Etc.

Plus which Clinton hates Obama because he’s black, apparently: Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard repeated the late Tim Russert’s claim that Clinton once said of the future president, “a few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” At National Review, Jim Geraghty excitedly added a differing version he’d heard — “this guy would have been getting us coffee” — and added, “Clinton has never elaborated on this comment,” which may be because no one has the balls to ask Clinton if he had actually said it.

Rightbloggers also spread the word that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be on a diplomatic tour during the convention, in which news they found curious significance.

“Clinton staying as far away from Charlotte as physically possible,” reported Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy, echoed by Laura Ingraham and others. “Hillary Clinton to Flee the Country During DNC,” said Jammie Wearing Fool. “Obviously she wants to get away from the impending trainwreck.” “Sure, she’s working,” sneered IMAO. “She’ll be meeting with some dignitaries from Volcanoland or something.” “Hillary Clinton joins slew of Democrats abandoning the DNC ship,” said Bryan Jacoutot at Legal Insurrection. “…it seems that no one who harbors aspirations of appealing to a broad electorate in the future is willing to associate themselves too closely with the President.”

Among the cities Clinton was scheduled to visit was Vladivostok, which Neil Munro of The Daily Caller helpfully informed us “is in the part of Russia closest to Manchuria, a province of China, where she will also visit. China’s economy is rapidly growing while the U.S. economy’s growth has stalled under Obama’s leadership.”

Munro will never miss a meal — and, like the other rightbloggers, apparently will also never tell his readers that the Secretary of State is prohibited by law from attending her party’s convention.

At the PUMA site HillBuzz, Kevin DuJan ran a long essay warning wives of Democratic delegates that their husbands could be looking for gay sex in Charlotte. “I put the words ‘DNC’ in the Craigslist search window for each of these specific sections and found hundreds of entries for guys looking for hookups during the Democrat Convention,” he wrote. “This puts Rob Lowe’s 1988 antics in Atlanta to shame.”

DuJan added, “Women who are married to men like this are people like Anne Rule (Rahm Emanuel’s wife), Michelle Obama (duh), all of Tom Cruise’s ex-wives, etc. Some of them know their husband is gay and they stay married just to be a power couple. Others, like Jada Pickett Smith, are lesbians who are married to a gay guy for mutual PR benefit.” If HillBuzz goes down, this guy could get a job with the Weekly World News.

About the best part of the convention from a rightblogger perspective was an unfortunate, last-minute insertion by the Democratic bosses of language, theretofore missing, acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as well as a hat-tip to the supernatural being known as God.

The bosses presumably felt that these insertions would disarm future rightwing attacks against the party, but the delegates lustily booed their obvious undemocratic tactics. Rightbloggers reported instead that the delegates had booed God and the Jewish people, thereby proving their atheistic anti-Semitism.

“Watch Democrats Boo God, Jerusalem,” announced Mollie Hemingway of Ricochet. “Not all Democrats are anti-Israel, but almost all anti-Israelis are Democrats,” thundered William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. “It’s possible internal poll numbers are showing the Jewish vote peeling off fast,” speculated Doug Powers, “causing the order to be given to add the Israel language to the platform.” “The Democrat Party will ultimately sink under the weight of its double rejection of God and Jerusalem,” prophesized Norman Berdichevsky.

“This is probably one of the most shocking, disturbing, and revealing things to come out of a national political convention in modern day history,” testified Sister Toldjah. “We-the-People have known for years that the New Marxist Democrats worship the other side…not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” perorated Gulag Bound. ” We also know that’s the reason they have worked so diligently for decades to do away with God by installing one perversion after another (the worst by far being their sacrifice of the lives of millions of unborn children) into US law. But, with this Democrat convention, they finally and fully came out of the closet and admitted it to all who were watching and listening. Watching the pride of their move to Luciferian ‘principles’ is truly chilling.”

The Huffington Post complained about the floor shenanigans, which Warner Todd Huston described as “clearly proving that there is a great division in the Democrat Party over these two issues,” though we did not see any delegates from the Huffington Post on the floor.

No mobs stormed the convention with flaming torches to murder the unbelievers, and the speeches went on. Preceding Clinton at the convention podium was Sandra Fluke, who first won attention by attempting to testify on contraception coverage in Washington, for which she was called a slut by Rush Limbaugh.

Fluke’s convention appearance got exactly the rightblogger response you would expect, including a tsunami of repulsive tweets, several of them from mainstream conservatives, e.g., “#waronwomen Fluke aborted from #DNC2012 lineup” (CNN’s Dana Loesch), “Bill Clinton just impregnated Sandra Fluke backstage” (Ann Coulter), “I wonder if she has ‘Birth Control Martyr’ business cards” (Jonah Goldberg), etc. Less well-known conservatives were more free-wheeling (“I think Sandra fluke needs something huge and black in her mouth, then…’next’ .. You will all get a turn” — Benjamin Perkins).

When people noticed, rightbloggers reacted in their traditional manner, e.g. Breitbart’s “BUZZFEED DEFENDS SANDRA FLUKE, IGNORES HATE AGAINST BREITBART NEWS’ DANA LOESCH.”

More considered reactions were found at their blogs: “What use could a party that prominently features a slut demanding that Catholics be forced to pay for her birth control have for God?” said Moonbattery. “[Fluke] objected to being called a slut (definition – a woman given to immoral or improper conduct),” said Susan North of Right Truth. “Sheesh, when are those Democrats ever going to buy a dictionary? And this woman wants to be a lawyer!” “President Obama Did Not Give Sandra Fluke The Climax Dems Expected,” said The Conservative Treehouse. “You and your femi-nazi friends are the ones who have declared war on women, not the Republicans,” role-played Michael Nellett at Western Journalism.

As C-hour approached, rightbloggers held a little tailgate party, preparing for the Big Dog to fuck Obama up as expected.

Doug Powers headlined, “Monica Lewinsky’s former rabbi to deliver benediction after Bill Clinton’s convention speech.” “Well, it’s ‘Sex Degrees of Separation’ Night’ at the Democrat convention,” Powers giggled, “and everybody is gearing up for an uncomfortable stroll down memory lane.” “Obama’s team is jealous of Clinton and resents his continued popularity,” fantasized No Quarter. “I believe this is a deliberate jab at the former President.” Ooooh boy, Clinton sure would be good and mad when he went out there after that!

But Clinton’s speech, as you have no doubt heard, went over gangbusters and ended with a bow to Obama, so many of the smarter brethren chose not to embarrass themselves by pretending it sucked (though their readers could be counted on to supply the missing slurs; when PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson, for instance, gave a fairly straightforward report, her first commenter observed, “I just wonder who, afterward, gave him his first BJ of the night, Chrisie Mathews or Fluke, the Georgetown slut.”)

Others, apparently eager to prove themselves, went the extra mile.

CNN commentator and RedState boss Erick Erickson allowed that it was “a solid Clinton speech… But there is a serious problem in the speech.”

What, no Chappaquiddick jokes? No: “Bill Clinton asked the crowd if they were better off than they were four years ago,” recorded Erickson, “and they all cheered back ‘yes.’ That was not wise. The Romney campaign and outside groups are going to use that. The Democrats, trying to paint the GOP as out of touch, are increasingly out of touch or just denying reality. That’s going to hurt them.”

So — they should have said “no,” and won America’s heart. “Bill Clinton, in that one moment, undermined Barack Obama’s whole re-election effort,” concluded Erickson.

While giving Clinton credit for “rhetorical sleights of hand,” Dick Morris of Fox News sniffed, “in his obvious inability to win the argument, Clinton showed us how weak it is… Is this all he can say about Obama’s record we all asked?”

“The crowd, which was in the palm of his hand, lost its energy and got bored as the speech went on,” claimed John Hawkins of Right Wing News, who quoted in support of his contention the tweets of other wingnuts. “It’s almost 20 minutes since I said ‘Wow, he’s going on a long time,’ and he’s still going,” said Ann Althouse. “He spoke for 50 minutes. That was really self-indulgent.”

National Review‘s Jim Geraghty took this too-long thing even further: “Clinton has a gift for making the unreasonable sound reasonable and making the reasonable sound unreasonable,” he said, “and it worked for the first… ten to fifteen minutes or so.” But, as portrayed by Geraghty, America couldn’t take more than a quarter-hour of the popular former President. (His National Review colleague Victor Davis Hanson had an even shorter attention span: “Bill Clinton gave an entertaining speech as is his fashion — but only for ten minutes,” he said. Later Hanson said Clinton in his late innings “nullified what he had accomplished in his first five minutes.” Maybe later he’ll tell us how Clinton blew his intro.)

“As the sections continued, it became clear that this is what Bill Clinton lives for,” Gergahty insisted, “how he misses the excitement, the attention, the power… Somehow it seemed fitting that the remaining viewers who were still watching were, in all likelihood, doing so in bed.” In case you wondered what Geraghty meant by that last bit, he added, “Bill Clinton began his tribute to President Obama by saluting his excellent judgment in whom to marry. I wonder how the secretary of state interpreted that remark.” Haw haw, ’cause he likes the ladies, get it?

Hot Air’s Allahpundit got in on the snarlfest: “Clinton’s speech finished behind football… I can’t imagine what Democratic schedulers were thinking… By the way, have we had any posts yet on the amount of media slobber after Clinton’s speech?” But in an update he acknowledged a report that the former President had actually won his TV time slot — against NFL football. We have to give Allahpundit credit for that, as he was practically alone among rightbloggers in doing so — though he did add, “the point above stands… If his numbers were 25 million head to head with the NFL — which are still lower than Michelle Obama’s — what might they have been on Tuesday night without the competition?” Ah, if only the DNC were wise enough to take the advice of their mortal enemies.

The saddest case was probably Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, whose legendary homerism reached a kind of apotheosis in her column entitled “Bill Clinton’s long, long speech about the meanie Republicans.” “Clinton was hoarse, and he seemed to holler for no reason at all… Yawn… unserious… disingenuous… incoherent…” etc. Oh, and “mostly, it seemed that Bill was paving the way for a potential Hillary presidential run.” Keep hype alive!

Actual Republican politicians merely pretended that despite the many ringing Obama endorsements contained therein, Clinton’s speech was “eerily anti-Obama” (Newt Gingrich), and “the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred” (Mitt Romney). That’s how the pros do it, folks.

As for the nominee’s own speech, rightbloggers insisted no one could possibly like it. “Obama’s State of the Union speech fizzles out Democratic convention,” declared Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. “Obama had a stage primed for a dazzling display of oratory… Instead, he offered what Jake Tapper recognized as a retread of his old speeches…” (Again with the MSM citations! Don’t they realize it’s a trap?) “The inescapable conclusion from this speech,” Morrissey judged, “is that Obama has nothing left in the tank — policy-wise, intellectually, and rhetorically.”

“Nothing more than a well-delivered dud,” said Commentary‘s Jonathan S. Tobin. “It would have been better had he not spoken,” said the ever-reliable Jennifer Rubin. “…Even for the liberal media, it will be hard to characterize a speech this prosaic as uplifting or fresh.”

And… oh, but why go on? When the tents were all folded, despite the alleged debacle, the Democrats saw “a swing of 4 to 7 points from their standing before the Democratic convention opened Tuesday,” reported USA Today, and a 4-to-5-point lead over Mitt Romney for the President.

Rightbloggers probably wonder how this could be — indeed, at National Review Andrew C. McCarthy asked “How can that be?” and at Power Line John Hinderaker asked, “Why is this election close?” They had a lot of theories, but neither of them considered the possibility that it was because people like themselves were getting to be noticed and read by ordinary Americans, who have decided that no matter how bad things are under the Democrats, there are some fates worse. They may be, you might say, victims of their own success.


Most Popular