This is not my usual weekend fare, but this piece by S.E. Cupp was just too good to pass up. The title alone really says it all, “Why Do We Keep Debating Trump’s Dumb Ideas?”
I simply do not understand why every time Trump says something, it becomes THE topic for days on end, repeated over and over again, with pundits weighing in on what inane comment Trump made THIS time, with too many now trying to act like his declarations are somehow logical or possible. Just astonishing.
And every time a candidate is lucky enough to actually get some air time instead of Trump, invariably the majority of the interview is getting their response to something Trump said (or so it seems, anyway). I assume they continue to play the game, even those who try not to answer at first, because they are thankful that just a little light is thrown their way for a change. It is aggravating as hell to those of us who actually care about the policies and platforms of the other candidates, a concept that seems to have been thrown out the window at this point.
My aggravations with this process were summed up beautifully by Cupp in her piece. I wish I could reprint the whole thing here, but I will try to capture the highlights, or some of them anyway. From Townhall:
Say what you want about his flimsy policy knowledge, his unadulterated blurting and his intolerance for facts — and I’ve said plenty — but Donald Trump is a master at setting the agenda.
Every couple of weeks he spits an idea into the ether — usually of the same gelatinous integrity as most loogies — and it magically finds itself regurgitated by every cable news program, late night show, campaign trail press gaggle and American dinner table.
The latest? Campaign rival Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to become President.
Before you rush over to Google, don’t bother. Cruz is totally eligible to become president. But that hasn’t stopped us from entertaining Trump’s newest spitball as a thing to “Discuss” with a capital “D”.
A brief tour of Trump’s previous talkers reads like a syllabus from Faber College.
There was the week-plus we spent debating what he meant when he said blood was coming out of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s “whatever.” He ultimately claimed “nose.”
Then there was the time we almost didn’t at all believe him when he said he was talking about Carly Fiorina’s “persona” when he said, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”
Well, those of us in the THINKING Community were quite clear about Trump’s intent when he referenced Fiorina’s face, or what he was REALLY saying about Kelly. We knew precisely what Trump was saying. It was crystal clear. How anyone could pretend differently says volumes about them – except that their fixation has impacted other candidates in this race so much in a negative fashion.
But hey – don’t take my word for it. Cupp continues:
[…] Worse than the name-calling and Animal House humor, though, are the conversations that seem to have a veneer of substance — and so are debated substantively, usually to the detriment of everyone involved.
First Trump lures you in by starting with an actual issue, like immigration or terrorism. But a few incoherent non-sequiturs later, it goes where no one in their right mind — or who was running for president — would ever take it. And a week later you’re actually discussing whether President Eisenhower’s horrific “Operation Wetback” is something we should legitimately revisit.
Or, instead of binge-listening to “Serial,” you find yourself reading up on the legal precedent for repealing the 14th Amendment. And whether we could actually get Mexico to pay for a wall on the U.S. border — to keep themselves out.
When Trump word-vomited that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States in response to the Paris terrorist attacks, all sorts of mind-numbing nonsense followed. Real, human people with grown-up jobs actually defended this by comparing it to the Japanese internment camps of World War II. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Well, this “real, human people” has had it with the constant attention paid to every idiotic, stupid thing Trump says as if it is in any way legitimate, feasible, or realistic. It just defies any semblance of logic or reason except that they want to direct the narrative. That is simply unacceptable.
Honestly, I think all the other candidates should DEMAND equal time. Every one of them. They should force these news stations to give them the same amount of free air (read: ad) time that Donald enjoys. At the very least, maybe we won’t have to see Trump on the tee-vee so often, which would sure save me from having to reach for the remote to change the channel when he comes on – again.
And, who knows, if the candidates did push the issue, maybe people will start to see that there are some really decent candidates out there who would make good Presidents. Hey, it’s a thought, anyway.
On a Programming note, as I mentioned in a previous post, Sharyl Attkisson’s program, Full Measure, will take a look at the rescue effort in Benghazi, or rather, the lack thereof. It should be mighty telling, especially in light of the “testimony” of Leon Panetta, the Hillary Clinton endorser who called the three soldiers who risked their lives in Benghazi “liars.” Wanna guess who I believe? Yeah, it is no contest.
Since this is a Weekend Open Thread, I have to leave you with something to make you smile. What would be better than a bunch of adorable baby animals all in one video? Nothing, so here it is:
Aren’t they just PRECIOUS?! Oh, my – so stinkin’ cute.
Okay, that’s it for me. I still want my question answered about the time wasted on one candidate above all others, but for now, I’ll just think about those cute babies…
Hope you have a great weekend. This is an Open Thread.