In politics there's academic analysis of elections, there's the commentariat's analysis of elections, there's a popular analysis of elections, there's politicians' analysis of elections, and then there's the Grover Norquistian analysis of elections, which happens to be among my more cherished ones, such as his this morning, on CBS: "The president was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head."
On the shoulders of such analytical giants does the far right rest. And that's about all the analysis of the latter that one needs.
And they wonder why they lost.
Speaking of Norquist, can anyone point me to something (an article, blog post, anything) that explains to me why Norquist has such power?
Posted by: You Don't Say | November 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM
This is Norquist at his best. His statement is not wrong -- it is merely incomplete.
Posted by: Jim Milstein | November 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM
The Daily Show's Samantha Bee did such an awesome takedown of Grover when she pretended to be a 12 year old girl to whom he was explaining tax policy. I think she got right to the heart of Grover's issues, and to why he is such an annoying little fuck.
Posted by: McJeff | November 13, 2012 at 06:01 PM