The GOP Debate Circus

I missed the first few minutes of last night's GOP circus debate and kept watching until the husband finally said that he could not stand it any longer (and after he yelled back at Mike Huckabee's sicken defense of Kim Davis).  Perhaps the most frightening thing is that the clown car occupants are what a once proud and rational political party has to offer the nation in the way of candidates. Other than perhaps Kasich, none strike me as fit for the office of presidency.  Rather, they are a bunch of pandering whores and con artist charlatans who would seriously put the nation at risk if they occupied the White House.  Many of the positions underscore just how dumbed down the GOP base has become that any of these individuals can be seen as a possible American president.  Dominating it all, of course, was Donald Trump, a true egomaniac who takes self-adoration to new heights.  A column in the New York Times looks at last night's circus.  Here are excerpts:

[S]ubstance had to muscle its way through the show business, by which I mean Donald Trump’s attempt to turn everything into an adolescent popularity contest and CNN’s willingness to reward that by filtering the entire evening through the prism of the Republican field’s proven ratings magnet: Trump, Trump, Trump.

What did Trump think of something mean that someone else on the stage had said about him? What did someone else think about something nasty that Trump had said about him or her?

Trump had insulted Jeb Bush’s wife: Discuss! Trump had insulted Carly Fiorina’s business career: Respond!

So it went, somewhat tediously and surreally, for many stretches of the debate on Wednesday night and especially for the first half-hour, during which Rand Paul took the precise measure of — and raised the correct question about — the egomaniacal front-runner.

“Do we want someone with that kind of character, that kind of careless language, to be negotiating with Putin?” Paul asked.

“I think really there’s a sophomoric quality that is entertaining about Mr. Trump, but I am worried,” he added, and I nodded so vigorously at the “worried” part that I’m going to need balm and a neck brace tomorrow.

Paul went on to single out Trump’s “visceral response to attack people on their appearance — short, tall, fat, ugly. My goodness, that happened in junior high.  . . . . And “junior high” is too easy on him, too kind. Trump comes from, and belongs in, the sandbox . . . 

I mentioned my nodding, but my real injuries came from shaking my head, over and over, because I couldn’t quite believe the Trump-centric nature of it all. I’m still mystified that he’s done this well in the polls for this long.

[H]ave we sunk to a point where we’re prepared to reach for someone so careless with his insinuations, so merrily and irresponsibly ignorant,  . . . 

Are we buoyed by a bully who calls anyone who disagrees with him a “loser,” promises vaguely that his presidency will be “unbelievable” (his favorite adjective, and an unintentionally telling one), and presents little besides his tumescent ego and stagey rage?

During the second half of the debate in particular, the conversation moved far enough away from Trump for all of the candidates to strut their stuff, for whatever that stuff was worth.

Cruz predictably won the awards for Most Strident and Most Smarmy, talking directly to the  camera rather than whoever had asked him a question.

I seriously worry about the future of the nation and what lays ahead for my children and grandchildren if one of these clowns makes it to the White House.  Be afraid, very afraid.

New Pew Poll: Bad News for the GOP

I often describe the Republican Party as an insane asylum that has been taken over by the inmates.  Now a new Pew Research Center survey suggests that I am not alone in that assessment.  The timing, of course, could not be worse for the GOP as it prepares for its first presidential candidate circus debate this week where the party's complete dysfunction will be on national display.  Pandering to the lunatics of the GOP base may make sense in a primary battle, but people are watching and are unlikely to forget batshitery in the primary come the general election.  A piece in The Hill looks at the GOP self-inflicted predicament.  Here are highlights: 

Given the nation’s historical preference for switching the party in the White House every eight years, the Grand Old Party should be having a grand old time heading into the 2016 races.

But a new Pew poll shows the party’s brand falling off a cliff, even among Republicans.

The late July poll found only 32 percent of voters holding a “favorable impression” of the GOP and 60 percent taking an “unfavorable view.” An early July Gallup poll also finds the Republican Party struggling for its footing on a steep downward slope, with only a 35 percent approval rating.

The biggest surprise is Pew’s finding that the slide in GOP support is primarily the result of Republican voters pulling away from Republican politicians.

At the start of the year, 86 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of their party. That figure has now fallen to 68 percent. According to Pew, that is “the lowest share in more than two years.” The poll also found an 8-point drop in the number of independent voters who view the GOP favorably, from 37 percent down to 29 percent. It is not surprising that, among Democrats, the view of the GOP has worsened amid its disarray. Only 14 percent of Democrats hold a favorable view of the GOP, down from 18 percent.

It is a surprise that backbiting, anger and contempt are this summer’s themes for Republicans. Just last November, after midterm election victories, the GOP base was energized and slinging darts at President Obama.

Now those same Republican are firing inside the tent, and with special delight at Republicans in Congress.

The depth of the disillusionment is clear. Only 28 percent of Republican voters give Congress a favorable rating, even though Republicans are in the majority in both houses.

The Pew poll can be read as evidence of the far right’s unhappiness with Republican leaders for not breaking down all attempts to govern. One of the few poll findings on which the GOP wins big comes when all voters are asked which party is “more extreme in its position.” Fifty-two percent of Americans now tell Pew that the GOP is a party of extremists while only 35 percent hold that opinion of Democrats. 

It is also worth noting that while the Republicans are taking turns lashing each other, the Pew poll found Democrats gaining in favorability among voters. “Today the gap [between the Democrats and the Republicans] is as wide as it has been in more than two years,” and moving in favor of the Democrats, Pew reported.

Republicans who were elected to Congress as part of the Tea Party wave in the 2010 and 2012 elections have never shown an interest in governing. Instead, they drive the activist base of the party with acid rhetoric suited for talk-show hosts. They engage in political brinksmanship, forcing one crisis after another but shredding the party’s brand with voters.

The GOP is currently a smashing talk-radio show or reality TV. But as a political party with responsibility to govern, its poll numbers are sinking under the table well ahead of November 2016 – the ultimate ratings period.

Hillary Announces Her Agenda

Hillary Clinton made her first "big speech" yesterday on Roosevelt Island in the East River of New York City.  Reportedly, the crowd turnout wasn't what was hoped for, yet her speech which some described as "flat" covered many issues and, as The Atlantic notes, laid out details that no Republican presidential candidate, declared or not, has yet to offer.  The event underscored what are Hillary's biggest challenges: (i) she does not have her husband's charisma, and (ii) she has yet to ignite any real excitement.   Personally, I find ALL of the GOP would be presidential nominees to be frightening, and not merely because they all seem to be seeing who can be the most anti-gay, but because they seem only too willing to betray our troops by launching more fool's errands in the Middle East and because their economic policy continue the GOP war on the middle and working classes.  Will others support her and turn out to the polls in November 2016 merely because they find the GOP candidate too frightening?  Here are excerpts from The Atlantic piece:

In her 45-minute address on New York's Roosevelt Island, a wooded sliver in the East River between Manhattan and Queens, Clinton laid out many proposals that Democrats care about. She did so in a speech that was almost aggressively pedestrian, devoid of soaring rhetoric or big ideas. “America can't succeed unless you succeed,” she said. “That's why I am running for president of the United States.” Clinton’s entire candidacy, it seemed, was built around a non sequitur.

The occasion itself was a strange one. Saturday's speech was, according to Clinton's campaign, a “launch,” yet Clinton announced her candidacy two months ago. Was she hoping to start over? Certainly not, her staff insisted—everything, they say, is going just fine, terrifically even. The chairman of Clinton's campaign, John Podesta, resorted to a baseball metaphor to explain the double beginning: “We've had spring training,” he said. “Now it's opening day.”

In keeping with the campaign so far, Saturday's speech was quite substantive and quite liberal. It was also quite flat. Clinton read it slowly off the teleprompter, articulating every word, sometimes with odd emphasis, in a near-monotone. Clinton spoke in Four Freedoms Park, a locale chosen for its symbolic freight.

She segued into what she called her “four fights”: to make the economy work for the middle class; to strengthen America's families with pro-worker policies; to “maintain our leadership for peace,  security and prosperity”; and to reform government and revitalize democracy. Under these vague headings she crammed expanding renewable energy, fighting climate change, funding infrastructure, universal preschool and childcare, making college affordable, paid sick days, paid family leave, equal pay for women, services for the addicted and mentally ill, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a ban on discrimination against gay and transgender people, and automatic voter registration.

[N]o one could accuse Clinton of not having an agenda; none of the Republican candidates has offered such a barrage of proposals. Recent polls have shown that most voters do not find Clinton trustworthy. She is apparently betting that policy and substance can be a substitute for character and personality.

Clinton’s advisers worry about the lack of passion the candidate elicits, but Saturday's speech was so non-rousing as to make one wonder whether that wasn't intentional—was it an attempt to bring Clinton down to earth, to make her ordinary? To deflate the aura of fame that clings to her and turn her into just another candidate, one who is solid and sensible and not too flashy, with lots of concrete plans?

Clinton tried this tack before, in 2008, when she tried in vain to convince Democratic voters that Barack Obama was all style and no substance. But this time, she is hoping she won't have that kind of competition.