I missed the rollicking Republicans the other night. Probably would have been watching the Twins if I hadn't been on one of my five-per-week Target runs. But, from everything I've read and seen . . . quite the Donnybrook: two hours of uninterrupted verbal fisticuffs, according to John Cassidy.
And 24 million viewers! The Power Line philosophers are sure the figure is a sign of the vitality of the Republican party. I'm not so sure. It's possible that many millions tuned in for the same reason they might watch NASCAR: anticipating a crash. As it turns out, however, The Donald didn't start rattling on about Megyn Kelly's bloody parts for another day or so.
From what I've heard, some of the things said during the debate were at least unusual, even if they had nothing to do with menstruation and did not rise to the level established by Michele Bachmann and others. I'm thinking especially of Marco Rubio, the consensus debate "winner," who allowed that "if this election is going to be a resume competition, then Hillary Clinton's going to be the next president, because she's been in office and government longer than anybody else here running tonight."
What's unusual is not that this statement, on its face, is false. (Clinton represented New York in the U.S. Senate for eight years and was Secretary of State for four; even if Rubio is giving her credit for being First Lady for eight years, there are Republicans running for President--Scott Walker, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Rick Perry--who have "been in office and government" longer than her twenty years.) What's unusual is the evident notion that something a lot of employers pay attention to--concrete relevant experience--doesn't, or shouldn't, count when the opening is for POTUS. I don't recall this being the Republican position, or Rubio's position, when John McCain's opponent was the former community organizer from Chicago. To me, it appears that the Republican view on this general question might be described as "flexible." Their support for term limits, for example, is consistent with the view that, in government, experience is irrelevant. On the other hand, their antagonism toward campaign finance regulation boosts the likelihood that incumbents will be re-elected again and again and again and again--until they become the center of a scandal or face a fabulously wealthy, self-financed challenger.
Republican primary voters appear for now to see it Rubio's way. Among the aforementioned candidates who've been in government longer than Clinton, only Walker is in the top tier, and, of course, the fellow at the head of the pack has no relevant experience at all, unless you count being a tiresome, whining, embarrassing boor.
Comments