Milbank and Capehart expound on Paul Ryan!


Straining, top pundits produce: Over at the Washington Post, the Flyweights Two have now weighed in concerning the Ryan selection.

Dana Milbank journeyed to Iowa, to the state fair, determined to offer deathless insights of this familiar type:
MILBANK (8/14/12): Ryan spoke from what fairgoers call the soapbox—a small platform where any citizen, even a politician, can have 20 minutes to voice his or her mind. But because of the open venue, the crowd of 3,000 people could not be cleansed of Democrats, indifferent Iowans and other undesirable elements.

Ryan, in a trying-too-hard outfit of blue jeans, wide leather belt and red-and-white checked shirt, began with a painful effort to establish common ground with the locals.
The candidate’s outfit was wrong, oh so wrong! Our corporate flyweights never tire of shoveling shit of this kind.

Arguably, Capehart was even more pitiful. In a new blog post, the Post board member offers these second-grade musings:
CAPEHART (8/14/12): I’ve been trying to think of something new to say about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee. Before he was tapped by Mitt Romney, I deemed him a risky pick as a running mate. And I’ve said that Ryan is already overshadowing Romney. And everyone else has said just [about] everything else. But, as is the scribbler’s way, there are a few little things that should be noted—and they all involve Sarah Palin.
Yes, Capehart actually wrote that. He had been trying to think of something to say. He didn’t come up with much.

Capehart’s a genuine flyweight. On his way up, he let the corporate bosses check at least three boxes (youngish, black and gay). A fourth key box was also involved—extremely polite, deferential.

Capehart has advanced all the way to the Post’s editorial board. We all can see the type of product which tends to pop out of his head.

Capehart and Milbank were trying to think of things they could say about Candidate Ryan! Neither fellow came up with much.

Straining, each pundit produced.


  1. With all due respect to the notion that the press does spend too much time worrying about what a candidate was wearing, did you see Paul Ryan's outfit in Iowa?

    He looked like Howdy Doody.

  2. "I’ve been trying to think of something new to say about Rep. Paul Ryan."

    Has anyone heard Capehart say something new on any topic, ever? It's all the most standard boilerplate.

  3. I am irritated by your discussion of Capehart's age, sexual orientation, and race.

    What matters is that he is, as you say, a flyweight, and he can be a flyweight strictly on his merits.

    Further: do you seriously think the position he was appointed to would have gone to a heavyweight instead?

    1. I am irritated that anyone would imply that the corporate bosses, when shopping for flyweight bullshit peddlers, aren't looking for certain desirable, flak-deflecting identity characteristics.

      Of course they are.

      It's no criticism of Capehart that he's young, gay or black.

      But observing those traits and noting their desirability is an indispensable part of the analysis of his bosses. Somerby hasn't really developed this theme, but he's not wrong to bring it in.

    2. Right. It's so easy to get a high-paying job these days if you are young, black and gay.

    3. Right. Thinking that your masters want to put an un-privileged face on their plans is the same as thinking there's no discrimination.

      You can be stupider, but it would take some work.

    4. It's amazing to me that so many leftists still believe in this shadowy secret conspiracy of discrimination against blacks, gays, etc, when virtually every major company announces openly, explicitly, and unequivocally on the front page of its website that it actively discriminates in favor or blacks, gays, etc. One is reminded of Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein and the daily Two Minutes Hate against that long-dead enemy.

    5. One can tell by looking at employment data just how discriminating these companies are in hiring blacks. Pity the white folk!

  4. So this is the Republican ticket:

    Romney's business career consists of borrowing tens of millions of dollars to do a leveraged buyout of your company. He then busts your union, cuts your wages, loots your pension and healthcare, bankrupts your company and fires you, all while collecting millions of dollars in "management fees." He then runs for president, delivering stern lectures on the evils of borrowing money.

    As his running mate, he selects a guy who grew up in a wealthy, privileged family, who paid for school in part using Social Security benefits, who has hardly collected a dollar's earnings in his life that didn't come from the government. This guy's main message is to lecture people for looking at the government safety net as a "hammock."

    One guy fires you and makes millions from it, the other guy says it's your fault because you covet the government "hammock." And this is a serious ticket put forth by one of our two great parties, while the other party is unable or unwilling to loudly and aggressively point this out. To say we are doomed doesn't begin to go far enough.

  5. You forgot to add that R&R want to keep funding the military industrial complex while shredding the safety net and raising taxes on lower income households.

    1. Actually, Romney's proposal includes a 20% tax reduction for all households, including lower income households.

      Well, this myth isn't as ridiculous as the one my friend Mary repeated, than R&R would ban the use of birth control. My cousin Phill claims that they secretly plan to eliminate the current Medicare for people over 55, even though Ryan's proposal says the opposite.

      I find it striking that many of the arguments advanced for the re-election of Obama are based on silly myths and wild exaggerations.

    2. Everyone gets a tax break and military spending increases? I've heard this one before. The numbers don't add up.

    3. Of course it doesn't add up.

      David has forgotten to say that there will not only be a rate cut -- there will also be the elimination of loopholes and tax preferences.

      Those loopholes and preferences will completely offset the rate cut -- Romney insists his plan will be revenue neutral.

      Guess what group is the mathematical beneficiary of the largest dollar value of tax preferences relative to their federal txes paid?

      That's right, lower income groups.

      In order to make his plan add up, Romney has to eliminate deductions, tax credits etc that benefit the less-well off -- He can't do it by eliminating them only for the rich, even if he starts with the rich, simply because there isn't enough money there.


      Now, earlier, I said David forgot about the tax preferences -- that was just me being nice.

      David, we all know you didn't forget this -- you're a clever lad.

      You just pretended it wasn't as important to know as it is to know about the magical lovely rate cuts.

      And because you are a propagandist -- not to put to fine a point on it, a liar.

      David and Romney -- ponies for everyone!

  6. Bob, you hang on every word to attack, but you altered the words "something new", to make it "something". That changes the thought.

    1. And that alleged change of thought makes Capehart look good... how?

      It diminishes the case that Capehart is useless... how?

      You're making us very sleepy, Unknown hater.

    2. Your absolutely right. It's only an issue when someone like Rachel Maddow is accused of changing quotes. Not the Great and Powerful Oz Somerby!