Best of ’07 Series: Michael Medved’s Riches Of Embarrassment

rudymcromney-rinos.jpg

This may have been our best overview of the GOP Nomination race – from last March:

We had an internal Reagan Wing meeting recently where a novel idea was expressed about nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved. “He doesn’t know much about politics,” was the comment. It was meant, I think kindly, to explain how he can, on the one hand, seem sincere expressing conservative ideals, and in the next breath or next show, recommend a course of action to practically destroy them. Which is a great segue to his recent take on the bad Saturday-Night-Live Sketch known as the Republican 2008 Presidential Nomination contest.

Three mice and a package
Three mice and a package

“Republicans have an embarrassment of riches!”

Medved was describing the current media-based and positively dismal showdown between presumed front-runners John McCain, Julie Rudiani and Mitt Romney. Any one of them, Michael assured us, would be a wonderful nominee for the Republican Party. I heard this while walking past the kitchen, where we keep conservative talk radio on, like a space-heater, 24 hours a day.
Sometimes it takes more than will power to keep my hands from dialing 1-800-955-1776. On this particular occasion I happened to be taking care of a 3 year old family member whose mischievous nature, I knew, could not be safely left to its own devices through the time it would take, on hold, waiting to get on the air with Michael. So I just, sort of, ground my teeth.
The Three Stooges? The Ink Spots? There is no over-the-top Parris-ian metaphor adequate to represent Medved’s unholy trinity. It is a collection of unmitigated misfits whose sad domination of GOP discussion foreshadows a disintegration of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, Michael dismissed all but those three:

1. John McCain is a “Republican” who has exploited the liberal media/GOP Establishment’s infatuation with the word “bipartisan” (but only during a Republican Majority) to:
a. Attack the First Amendment and free elections with McCain/Feingold,
b. Attack American Industry and prosperity based on “Environmentalist” Lies with McCain/Lieberman,
c. Attack Border security and the rule of law on behalf of habitual criminals with McCain/Kennedy, and
d. Negotiate a partial Democrat veto on Bush Judicial appointments “in exchange for” retaining the Democrats ability to shut down legislation with the unconstitutional filibuster. In other words, we give something up in exchange for giving something else up.

2. Julie Rudiani is a cross-dressing gay rights activist whose only common agreement with Republican principle is the serious (but selective) enforcement of laws (if he happens to personally agree with them) and the Iraq war. He has been open about his extreme liberalism. He is the most honest of the three and, as a direct result, will be the least likely to appeal to Republicans when they realize what he really stands for. No one, as socially liberal as he is, has EVER won the Presidency.

3. Mitt Romney was (until Jan. 4, 2007) the liberal Governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, joining ten (100%) Democrat US Congressional Representatives, Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the major offices of what is arguably the most liberal state in the history of the Union. As I write, the Democrat’s Party holds 141 of 160 seats in the State House and 35 of 40 in the Senate of Massachusetts.
Romney won its Governorship by convincing the voters of Massachusetts that he did not significantly disagree with, but shared their principles. He is now assuring Republicans that he is actually conservative and agrees, instead, with us (and only succeeded in Massachusetts by fooling the voters of his state, a fact that we are supposed to applaud), and that WE CAN TRUST HIM now… not like his Massachusetts constituents. Romney is Medved’s favorite, presumably because he has done to the “Cultural Crusader” what he claims to have done to his State’s voters.

What, exactly, is it that Michael sees in The Trinity?

NONE of these men is minimally qualified to be the Republican Nominee.

McCain’s cognitive dissonance, coupled with his erratic behavior, makes him not only the subject of outright animosity by conservatives, but suspected of mental imbalance by every group I’ve queried on the topic.
Julie Rudiani is as much a Republican as Barak Obama… except for his use of the name.
God may know what Mitt Romney is, but you and I don’t and I suspect Mitt doesn’t either. It’s not possible. But he has great hair and the charismatic ability Bill Clinton displayed to express to almost anyone exactly what they want to hear. His greatest liability is that the public has records and can examine what he said to the previous audience.

But these are those who have been anointed as “first tier” by the liberal media/GOP establishment coalition and Medved is proud of them. But hey, as was suggested, he probably doesn’t know much about politics. Perhaps he should stick to movie reviews.

As it happens, the GOP race has turned into a movie

In Sergio Leone’s 1966 Spaghetti Western Masterpiece, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, three scoundrels of varying degree, played by Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach, engage in a complex struggle for lost gold against a backdrop of the American Civil War.
Just as in the GOP stand off for 2008, none of the three owns or deserves the prize.
Just as in the GOP stand off, we see contestants willing to violate any moral principle or tell any lie to get it.
And in the GOP struggle, right now, we see the three contestants locked in a Mexican standoff, ready to kill the other two, politically, for the prize, but strategically unable to do so just as in the movie’s epic final scene:
They stand, alone, under the western sun at three equidistant points in a circle, six-guns ready, each man on the verge of annihilation, on the verge of riches. None can act, but their eyes flick back and forth to the other two, their wills held in suspense. The first to make a move is the most likely loser. Each two has nullified the other one. It is the classic Western quick-draw showdown, but with three instead of two, and no one can draw… time passes… uncertainty grows…
The camera backs away to cinematically encompass the entire scene. It begins to circle around the three men, the would-be killers, could-be victims, capturing the backdrop, the rugged and beautiful Southwest wilderness.
The three men are at the center of the earth. The music rises. . . “How,” the back of your mind whispers, despite your fascination, “can a film afford this much time?”

The Republican Party is frozen in time. We are an immobilized, directionless, inertial mass. It is, with tragic literality, a Mexican Standoff. We are not talking about purpose as a Party. We are not addressing strategic objectives. We are ignoring the ELEPHANT in the room. We are talking about style and personality. We are talking about who talks best.

We are listening to each of three men who have never, in all their political lives, led us, contend that he is the one to be our top leader, that he actually now agrees with us.

Wake up.


Arise. The true sun has begun to move across the sky and we are young in the century. The world has not yet seen what we can do.
Updated  March 05, 2007   Written by Doug Parris

Advertisements

One thought on “Best of ’07 Series: Michael Medved’s Riches Of Embarrassment

  1. What does Medved have against the constitution?
    He does nothing but bad mouth Ron Paul who is the only candidate that talks about upholding the constitution and his voting record for 30 years stands to back it up.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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