CSotD: Could this joker be a trump?
Skip to comments
Pat Oliphant on the Donald. As always, Oliphant is pithy with a dash of mean, but enough absurdity to provide a laugh alongside the commentary. Not everyone can do that.
And we may need it.
Howard Kurtz began "Reliable Sources" Sunday thusly: "We've had a good time, I have to admit, poking fun at Donald Trump with his birther conspiracy, that hair, the rich guy swagger, and the notion that he's just pretending to run for president. But what if we who peddle the conventional wisdom are wrong? What if Trump runs and turns out to be the Ross Perot of 2012? Is the press giving him an absurdly easy ride? "
He then led Craig Crawford, columnist for "CQ Roll Call"; Mark McKinnon, contributor to "The Daily Beast" and a former media adviser to George W. Bush, and Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief for "The Chicago Sun-Times" through a round table in which he tried to figure out why reporters are focusing on what an idiot the Donald is, instead of talking about his actual policies, his prior positions on those topics, his business failures and his three wives.
"(I)f we're going to give him all of this attention, why don't we take him seriously in terms of scrutiny?" he asked.
The panel basically responded that, while Trump is, at this stage, mostly being mocked, he'll get serious treatment when he becomes a serious candidate.
Sweet also pointed out that, when you cover him, "you will get clicks and lots of ratings hits," making him an irresistable topic and an even more irresistable guest.
What you don't get are honest answers. You get deflections and denials and you basically get played. But, Sweet noted, when things really begin to happen, he'll be covered by investigative reporters and others whom he won't get to distract because they won't be talking directly to him, and at that point, all the toys will be dragged out of his attic and put on display.
There is the chance, however, that by then it will be too late. Consider the absurdity of the birther theory. Crawford noted, "(T)here are about a fifth of the Republican primary voters who believe this. They are like a kid afraid of a monster under his bed. You can't use reason to change his mind."
It could be that the answer is mockery. It may be that the political cartoonists and the Jon Stewarts and JImmy Kimmels will be the pundits with the most clout in the coming election, because, when reason is no longer effective, you need that pie in the face to make your point.
(And even when reason hasn't been dismissed from an election, mockery can get traction and run right over it: Once Jay Leno started making jokes about Bob Dole's age, Bob Dole's political opinions were no longer part of the campaign.)
Last night, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the lack of attendance at Tax Day Tea Party rallies this year compared to last, raising the question of whether the Tea Party phenomenon has faded, and the related question of whether Republicans have been taking a fringe movement far too seriously. She also asked the related question of why Democrats don't pay attention to the rising anger among their natural constituency and make use of their Senate majority and ownership of the White House.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
All reasonable questions.
So how about this scenario: What if Donald Trump (or Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin or any of the fringe candidates) runs as an independent and, just as Ross Perot attracted and energized libertarians with his candidacy, engages and attracts the birthers and other so-called fringe voters.
And what if, at the same time, the Republicans ignore that group and put up a credible, mainstream conservative candidate to oppose Obama?
(Well, okay, you'd have to keep reminding the cartoonists to pay attention to the two major candidates. But besides that.)
Comments 3
Comments are closed.