I've been up since 5am when we were robocalled by two school districts to tell us that schools would be delayed by two hours, because another asshole storm dumped snow all over the place.
During my early morning surfing, I checked out Drudge to see what was going on. His headlines were all about the coming Apocalypse. White guys lose! Obama is giving away the store to freeloaders! Rapist and looters abound! Really. He included some random headline about a rapist in Hyde Park, Obama's old neighborhood. Like he was responsible for that, too.
I did a screen shot a few hours later, but he had changed up the headlines, so things were less dire. Still not happy, but less end of the world-y.
My favorite headline that I found on Drudge earlier was this hysterical rant by Rush Limbaugh.
Apt. 11d 
I feel like we need to go to the time-back machine on the internets and remember what we felt like in 2004. I’ve been having lots of flashbacks (mind you I spent yesterday glorying in the schadenfreude and will give myself a bit more time to wallow). But, the key sentiments I remember include a first attack against the mismatch between exit polls/vote counts in Ohio, frustration about the “imaginary voting booths” in Florida (remember, no paper trail, made my companies with significant ties to Republicans).
Then, we woke up and tried to grasp the notion that in fact, though we didn’t really loose in 2000 (that was a statistical tie, decided against us by an ugly, biased coin toss), we did loose in 2004 and started talking about what to do. We’d thought we could pull it through: the economy was doing badly, we were in the midst of a war with body counts. But we lost, and, with a candidate who was chosen because we hoped the other guy would be willing to vote for him.
I did soul searching and thought hard about what hills I needed to defend and went about doing what I could to protect them.
I wonder what soul searching the Repubs are going to do and where they’ll end up.
LikeLike
Regarding Rush’s rant: Democrats as “Santa Claus” is an old trope, at least as old of P.J. O’Rourke, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t make it up either.
From 1992’s “Parliament of Whores”:
I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged mate, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.
Of course, in 1992 Bill Clinton ended 12 years of Republican dominance, and the party was never heard from again. Just like today.
LikeLike
What, there’s no such thing as Santa Claus? I thought, “Yes, Virgina, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary the world would be if there were no Santa Claus. . . . ”
After taking on Big Bird, really, are the Lumbaughites going to take on Santa Claus?
(And, I speak as someone who doesn’t like the whole Santa Claus thing, but it doesn’t seem like comparing Democrats to Santa Claus would be a particularly effective strategy).
LikeLike
bj
Especially not if they’re trying to attract the youth vote. Claiming Santa Clause doesn’t exist and Big Bird should be unemployed doesn’t seem like a good way to build up support with the future voters.
I’ve spent more hours than I’d like to admit reading the National Review. At first it was a little bit of schadenfreude, but now I’m doing it because it’s interesting. There’s a lot of pretty candid debate going on over what the future Republican party should be and how conservatives should fit into that picture. The spin and united front have fallen among the columnists and the commenters, and instead you’re seeing a discussion of how to renegotiate relations between various different factions within the party.
LikeLike
“a discussion of how to renegotiate relations between various different factions within the party”
Any discussion on how to rebuild relations between the party and reality?
LikeLike
Doug,
That is one of the issues being debated. At least some people seem willing to acknowledge that departure from reality helped contribute to defeat. Of course, how to reengage with reality is a much harder issue to deal with.
LikeLike
Looking forward to finding out if it happens.
LikeLike