When watching anything Republican these days, I feel as if I have entered a Theater of the Absurd. They've always been the upside-down, black-is-white nutso Bubble World party, but Trump has taken them many steps further into Bizarro Land. He is their One that Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. He's escaped the keepers, unlocked the asylum and let all the inmates loose on the land. The crazies are multiplying and they're determined to vote him in as President.
The most splendidly representative moment of last night's right-wing pageant of wackoism came after the two-and-a-half-hour obscenity. Following Trump's staggering exit from the ring, where he had just been pummeled by a boy and a serpent, CNN's Chris Cuomo asked the bloodied remains why the IRS is auditing his tax return, to which Trump responded: "I don't know, maybe because of religion … maybe because of the fact that I'm a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it."
Can it get any better than that? Can the sheer emptiness of demagogic emotionalism get any emptier? Can the right's profanity of Obama's "Christian persecution" grow any more profane? If so, I can't imagine how, although The Donald is likely to find a way.
Other best-of-the-best highlights occurred offstage as well. It seems that Glenn Beck, for instance, doesn't quite have this spin thing down. A strong Cruz supporter, Beck tweeted during the debate: "Rubio is killing it." Whoa, Glenn, are you back on the bottle?
The RNC's Reince Priebus, however, was spinning down on Twitter to magnificent effect: "Tonight we saw another spirited debate between the most diverse and well-qualified group of presidential candidates in history." In history! Priebus was able to say this, one supposes, only because the Lincoln-Douglas debates were over a Senate seat. As for the meaning of "spirited debate"; see: schoolyard brawl. And "well-qualified" is a relative term which, sadly, is also a true one within the historically recent, hapless horde of Republican wannabes.
Also to savor is the NYT's reporting on the spirited debate. In a section subtitled "We haven't hit bottom yet," the Times's Alexander Burns observes that "Even by the standards of 2016, this was a nasty debate." While that observation may be satisfyingly accurate, Burns, in a following section, loses perspective: Trump's "obvious discomfort handling policy questions and his apparent unwillingness — or inability — to elaborate on his ideas, may further unsettle Republicans already concerned about his capacity to compete in a general election."
That passage brushes up against the fanciful notion that Republican primary voters give a considered damn about well-handled policy, elaborated ideas, or able capacities. Trump remains the most capable Republican presidential candidate precisely because of his vacuousness. And, from politics professor Matthew Dickinson (reported in an accompanying Times story), there is this thunderingly axiomatic bluntness: "The most important thing to understand is for people who attend Trump rallies, the attacks by Rubio and Cruz validate everything he says."
Let us, then, take a peek at what these Republican primary voters — readers of Drudge — have to say (as of 7:36 a.m. Central) about who won last night's debate, notwithstanding the press corps's consensus that Rubio triumphed:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment