Do you think this is the kind of country that would replace Barack Obama with a president who mocks people for their disabilities? This is actually a serious question.
And before you object, I know all about the previous occupant of the White House. I remember when George W. Bush did an interview back in 1999 with Tucker Carlson and decided to make fun of Karla Faye Tucker for pleading for her life:
The most disquieting aspect of Mr. Carlson’s report of Mr. Bush’s language is not what it says about Mr. Bush’s ability to dignify politics after President Clinton’s squalor. Rather, it is that Mr. Bush may have been showing off for Mr. Carlson, daring to be naughty. He may be proving his independence, which Mr. Carlson likes, but it is independence from standards of public taste — not the sort of independence many voters will be seeking in a successor to Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Carlson reports asking Mr. Bush whether he met with any people who came to Texas to protest the execution of the murderer Karla Faye Tucker. Mr. Bush said no, adding: “I watched [Larry King’s] interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like `What would you say to Governor Bush?’ ” Mr. Carlson asked, “What was her answer?” and writes:
“`Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don’t kill me.’ “
Ms. [Karen] Hughes, who says Mr. Bush’s decision not to commute Tucker’s sentence was “very difficult and very emotional,” says Mr. Carlson’s report is “a total misread” of Mr. Bush. Mr. Carlson, who describes Mr. Bush as “smirking,” says: “I took it down as he said it.”
Nothing remotely resembling the King-Tucker exchange that Mr. Bush describes appears in the transcript of Mr. King’s hour-long Jan. 14, 1998, program. And it is difficult to imagine anything Mr. Bush said that Mr. Carlson may have “misread” that could do Mr. Bush credit.
I also know that the Bushes were the precursors to the current post-truth party. For example, after Carlson reported on Bush’s mocking of a woman he had condemned to death, and also on Bush’s liberal use of profanity, he got some major pushback from the campaign.
“Then I heard that Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she’d heard — that I watched her hear — she in fact had never heard, and she’d never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I’ve obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they’re really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That’s all conventional. But on some level, you think, there’s a hint of recognition that there is reality — even if they don’t recognize reality exists — there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn’t get that sense at all. A lot of people like her. A lot of people I know like her. I’m not one of them.”
When Carlson says that Karen Hughes “almost crosse[d] over from bravado into mental illness,” he could just as easily be describing Donald Trump.
There is one difference, however.
When Bush mocked Karla Faye Tucker, he did it in the privacy of the backseat of a car. His campaign could and did deny that it ever happened.
Donald Trump mocked New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski’s disability on a stage in front of thousands of supporters. There’s no denying that he did it or what he meant by it. At another point, Trump said that conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who is partially paralyzed, “couldn’t buy a pair of pants.” That was also captured on camera.
So, even if there isn’t as much difference between George W. Bush and Donald Trump as people might think, there’s a lot more ammo to use against Trump.
So, I ask again, is this the kind of country that would replace Barack Obama with a president who mocks people for their disabilities?
Just shy of 60 million people were okay with the Wasilla woman being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
But she didn’t get elected.
Not even close.
Does suggest that for 45% of voters nationally, minimum standards are very low or don’t exist for a GOP nominee. The LA governor’s race (Vitter 44%) suggests that that 45% of voters isn’t increasing even in a very red state. (Or that Vitter fell short on the very low minimum standards.) It’s also possible that at the national level, the low/no minimum standards voters peaked in the 2000 to 2004 period at around 50% (or possibly earlier since Clinton didn’t manage to get 50% of the vote).
That might depend on what the turnout of angry white voters are. There are plenty of them. Trump tries very hard to appeal to them and all their preconceived notions and to implant more. After all, he can say ‘there were thousands of them cheering’ and you can say how so and he can pass it off with ‘geez don’t you guys read your own trash?’ If you are unprepared you are stumped and the lie lives on to another day, at which time ‘ that’s not what I meant, you are not listening again’. He and his friends in the clown car are all dangerous. At least that nut job from Wasilla sort of, kinda knew she was a screw ball at the time.
MSM Alice asked the Trump Red-state SpokesQueen how these blatant contradictions could possibly be believable.
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Perfectly apropos to the present state of rampant wingnut Reality-Denialism. (I’ve deployed it myself on occasion under similar circumstances to make essentially the same point.)
Don’t you have to believe that somewhere out there exists an analog to the Gingrich GOPAC memo — which, unlike Newtie’s, just has never become public knowledge — in which the troops are counseled in all seriousness with essentially the Red Queen’s program (which they dutifully practice)? Really, it’s hard to believe that could possibly not be the case.
There’s always the quote from Karl Rove that pretty much sums it up.
You know the one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
Having heard how people have rationalized votes for Dubya, Palin, and a GOP House and Senate I am confident that a Cruz or Trump could get close enough to a majority for the GOP to steal the election. Unfortunately, “daddy” appeal is real, and people do fall for the “be afraid, vote for me” tactic all the time.
What’s interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) this time is that we really do have two candidates with proto-fascist philosophies leading the polls this time – Trump and Cruz. They both ignite their supporters to hate on racial groups, and both have a complete disregard for laws that prevent them from doing whatever they want. If one of them wins the nomination that will tell us a lot about how extreme our country has become. If one of us wins the election then I think we’ll start seeing large emigrations from this country elsewhere – unlike people just talking about it after 2004.
I still kinda expect the GOP to settle on Rubio just because I am hoping the party elders see the danger of Cruz or Trump … but unlike 2008 or 2012 I’m not confident that they’ll get their preferred candidate. Nor am I confident that there aren’t a lot of GOP party elders who prefer the fiery rhetoric and disregard for laws that Cruz represents.
OTOH, Cruz really isn’t likeable. And would guess that he’d score higher on a dislike rating than Nixon (the only TV POTUS that lacked a likeable quotient).
A lot of people may not have liked Nixon, but he was elected President twice. People may not “like” Cruz (I heard people didn’t “like” Joe McCarthy either) but that doesn’t mean he can’t do damage.
Nixon is the only modern POTUS that had zero personal likable qualities. However, he was viewed as experienced in policy matters and presented himself as a serious politician. That can’t be said for any of the leading GOP candidates. Cruz is both unlikable and a policy and political featherweight.
The first time the Democratic Party was split by Wallace (and how is he different from Trump except he did have an election as governor behind him).
The second time he was the sitting President (why didn’t Kerry beat W?) and his opponent had even less charisma. I know many here voted for McGovern on policy, but face it, the man always looked like he was sneering. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Nixon inherit those Wallace voters?
McGovern never sneered. He just didn’t validate the stupid, anti-New Deal policies, and racism. So, I guess stupid, fascist, and racist folks would have imagined that McGovern sneered.
The Wallace vote went to Goldwater in ’64 and Nixon in ’72 and every GOP POTUS candidate since then.
This is why I say that charisma is overrated when it comes to politics. Oftentimes, it seems more like something people project onto a figure after-the-fact rather than something that has an affect on people not already in the political bubble. Sort of like hypnosis or alternative medicine.
Disagree. In real time there is a charisma element. But it’s rarely absolute and usually comparative. For example, Scott Brown does possess a modest amount of charisma, and against Coakley that was his winning margin. Whether Elizabeth Warren is more inherently charismatic than Brown is irrelevant because in her first political campaign she was still in a campaign learning mode, but one-on-one she matched Brown’s charisma level, and in blue MA that’s all Brown’s opponent needed to do.
The numbers do support my interpretation.
2010 Brown 52% Coakley 47%
2012 Warren 52% Brown 47% (Obama carried MA w/61%)
2014 Sheehan (Inc.) 51.5% Brown (carpetbagger) 48.5%
Your numbers mostly show raw demography, or the year-to-year shift thereof, especially the comparison of 2010 and 2012. 2014, of course, had different dynamics of the electorate due to it being a different state so it doesn’t really fit into the comparison of the other two states. However, a polling average of the state (see RCP) shows that Scott Brown was about a month away from catching the 2014 wave while Sheehan mostly flailed in place.
Stuff like that is exactly why I say that charisma is largely meaningless in elections. Once you have an easily obtained amount of it, having more doesn’t really help. It’s like interviewing for a job. The difference between being poorly dressed and mediocrely dressed is huge, but the difference between being mediocrely dressed and sharply dressed is small.
Once someone wins the nomination (and winning the nomination depends on a lot more than charisma), one-sentence memes become much more important than charisma.
Political spin-meisters can make anyone appear to be likable – that’s their job.
Reagan won the GOP New Hampshire primary based on “I’m paying for this microphone” and the spin around that. Once he won the nomination, pointing out that he opposed Social Security became “there you go again”. It wasn’t charisma, exactly, it was knowing how to deflect substantive criticism.
Cruz has his bacon machine gun, Green Eggs and Ham, and his auditioning for the Simpsons. He can play charming as well as any politician.
Voting in the US is tribal. If Cruz wins the nomination, he starts with at least 45% of the vote. If 10 million men and a few million women can be convinced that he’s really not a bad guy, that the Liberal Media is out to get him, that he’s saying thing that Joe the Average Voter believes but won’t say, then him being reincarnated Joe McCarthy won’t matter.
Don’t underestimate him. 🙁
Cheers,
Scott.
McCain only got 46% of the vote against an African-American POTUS nominee, admittedly one of the most gifted politicians in the history of the U.S., but still.
Romney only got 47% of the vote against an incumbent African-American President who presided over a first term with a terrible economy, an economy which was still recovering on Election Day. Oh yeah, and his signature policy accomplishment was viewed more negatively than positively.
I can definitely imagine worse candidates than McCain or Romney. In fact, it appears that the GOP base wants to nominate one of their large roster of worse candidates. Additionally, the POTUS electoral demographics continue their slow slide away from today’s GOP candidates, election by election.
All in all, I’d guess that a POTUS candidate from either party, no matter how bad, can count on getting 40% of the 2016 vote, but not 45%.
And I cam’t imagine anyone outside the most rabid GOP base voter who could have been charmed by Cruz’s Green Eggs and Ham and bacon-cooking machine gun excursions. There’s a few descriptions of Tailgunner Ted that come to mind for me: “offensively condescending” is the most frequent.
It seems to me that even Ted’s supporters wouldn’t describe him as charming as a first choice. One of the main things Ted’s supporters like about him is that he’s more than willing to be an asshole. Ted’s voters hate current U.S. governance and politicians so much that they LIKE his eager willingness to be an asshole.
That doesn’t seem to me like a good general election strategy, but I encourage GOP voters to knock themselves out pursuing the “I like assholes” vote next November.
I said he “looked like he was sneering”. Part of the television age. Wouldn’t have mattered pre 1950.
What’s interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) this time is that we really do have two candidates with proto-fascist philosophies leading the polls this time – Trump and Cruz. They both ignite their supporters to hate on racial groups, and both have a complete disregard for laws that prevent them from doing whatever they want.
Don’t discount Rubio. He did hear about his comments yesterday, I hope.
Oh, they are far from the only proto-fascists in the mix. But of those who might actually win, they are the two who believe it and would rule in such a manner. Rubio is saying what his handlers think are the right things to say. I can’t see him launching some blatantly illegal program against some minority and then saying “the courts made their ruling, now let them enforce it.” I can with Trump and Cruz.
I thought you were going to say Trump and Hillary.
I’d like to think not, but I’ve been wrong before.
We do seem to be in a post-truth political world. Instead of “none dare call it treason,” we have a political media that subscribes to the notion of “none dare call it lying.” I got pointed to a column at the Washington Post by one Philip Bump, who goes to great lengths to justify the political media’s refusal to call the lies of Donald Trump lies. It’s pretty pathetic.
As to Karen Hughes, wow, I’d mostly blotted that mean piece of work from my memory. Tucker Carlson’s account of his encounter with Hughes sounds to me like some bosses I’ve had. Absolutely shameless in lying about themselves or their mistakes, but demanding absolute perfection and then some from subordinates:
“Why didn’t you tell me this deadline was coming up?!”
It was on the pink sheets that go out every Friday, on your paper calendar, and I sent you two e-mail reminders.
“But why didn’t you say anything to me?”
You’ve been out of the office for the last week visiting your boyfriend in Sacramento; I did mention it the one time you called in.
“Well, get an extension.”
The usual ‘crush of work’ reason for the request?
“No, tell them the deadline was misdocketed.”
Sure thing, boss. (Asshole)
I.e.,
And that worse-than-useless (i.e., actually doing harm) state of the corporate media is a very major component of what so ails us.
Shorter: state of the corporate control is a very major component of what so ails us.
I just saw the movie Spotlight, and it is one of the best films I’ve ever seen. The script, direction, cast, pace, subject matter and cinematography were flawless.
I bring this up here because Globe editor Marty Baron, who initiated the investigation by the Spotlight team, instructed the team to not focus the stories on the individual priests because the stories would get lost. He told them instead to focus on the systemic corruption in the upper levels of the Church because that was the story that would have the most impact.
I want the media to stop obsessing over Trump and step back to analyze the milieu that produced him and all the extremist candidates in the Republican pool. Media need to report their proposals and statements and ask them what they mean, how they intend to implement plans and what affect would policies have on people. Media also need to report where these ideas come from and who has influenced these candidates.
But silly me. It’s not their “job”. But the obsession over Trump does provide a good distraction from the harm every one of these candidates can do to the country. Because I think if any Republican is elected President we are screwed.
Political incorrectness is not something Trump practices. What he does is Trump hate for his personal benefit.
I’d disagree with the pundits who say that pushing back against his rhetoric is dangerous. It was dangerous during the first months of the campaigning. Since then Trump has spewed so much that he’s created his own vulnerability and so the other candidates need to push back hard. At this point they’ve got nothing to lose.
all this?
It’s that there was no need under present circumstances . . . none whatsoever . . . to add that
None. Completely superfluous.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone 🙂
You too!
Trump can win the GOP nomination. But on this Thanksgiving Day, let is reflect that he can’t win the Presidency.
Amen. And Awomen.
I agree with hawesg’s conclusion here; Trump won’t be President. Even conservatives are starting to contemplate if we’re going to have a repeat of the 1964 POTUS electoral result.
I also agree with hawesg’s good wishes. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!!
Yes.
Yes.
Outrage/outrageous statements are the new black for Republicans, at least at the national level. It’s sucked all the air out of the room, to the detriment of most of Trump’s competitors. Nothing he’s said to date has hurt him, and this likely won’t either. His supporters value his not backing down far more than than the do courtesy. Yes, this country might very well elect such an individual.
I started a comment.
It grew.
Now a standalone post.
Happy Turkey Day. And…WTFU!!!
Reply there if you wish.
AG
” is this the kind of country that would replace Barack Obama with a president who mocks people for their disabilities? “
Uh, yeah, I hate to tell ya – if it’s his Teabagger followers doing the voting, the answer is yes …