Is it just the imagination of an inveterate Democratic voter, or are the Republican incumbents in Georgia's US Senate runoff elections both horrible candidates? I don't mean "horrible" in connection with their position on this issue or that one—by that metric, they're in the Republican grain and no more objectionable, on average, than 50 of their colleagues in the US Senate. I mean "horrible" in the sense of ineffective, bad at what they do, unattractive, unlikeable, uncharismatic, wooden, probably corrupt, and, unless these deficiencies are obscuring their wit, dumb as rocks. Last night, one of them, Kelly Loeffler, whose husband owns the company that owns the New York Stock Exchange, debated her Democratic opponent, Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. I say "debated," which suggests there was an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But it wasn't that kind of debate, since, no matter the question, Loeffler's answer, spoken in the voice of Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey, the effect heightened by her vacant stare, was that Warnock is a radical Marxist. What should be done about the plague? "My opponent is a radical Marxist." Would she acknowledge that Biden won the election? "My opponent is a radical Marxist." Why do the players on the basketball team you own dislike you so? "My opponent is a radical Marxist." Please tell us why it's okay that, after being briefed on coronavirus last winter, you dumped a bunch of hospitality stocks and bought shares in companies specializing in work-from-home software applications. "My opponent is a radical Marxist."
The craziest thing I heard today was a theory about how during the debate Loeffler was wearing an ear piece through which she received prompts from an overlord on what to say. No, no, I think she is herself responsible for the full range of coruscating brilliance on display. I was thinking that her incumbency was a poor advertisement for Georgia voters, but then Warnock reminded everyone that Loeffler didn't win an election. She's in the Senate because the Republican governor appointed her to the seat after the real incumbent retired early on account of poor health. "Loeffler was appointed and Georgia was disappointed," quipped the Reverend. He probably realized that Loeffler's one note performance was a license to drop every line he had practiced. That is the way with radical Marxists—they can hold many lines in their head at once and summon them forth at a plausibly appropriate moment. Sinister!
At least Loeffler gets a participation trophy. Her colleague, Senator David Perdue, didn't show up to debate Jon Ossoff, the Democratic challenger for his seat. They debated in October, before the general election, and there was a consensus that it had not gone well for Perdue. He nevertheless outpolled Ossoff in the election, though so narrowly as to attain only a plurality, not an outright majority as Georgia law requires. Thus the runoff election, and Perdue has evidently decided not to repeat the mistake of subjecting himself to questions. As far as I know, the last time he opened his mouth was to mispronounce Kamala Harris's name, repeatedly and deliberately, with more than a tinge of a racial taunt, while warming up the crowd for a Trump rally in Georgia. Ho, ho, ho, funny stuff!
Believe it or not, Perdue also has ethics problems related to stock trades: during his time in the Senate, he's made nearly a third of all the transactions made by all the senators. One of a hundred senators, one out of three stock trades. But why are any senators trading stock? They are buying and selling the stocks of corporations that are spending millions to lobby them. Seems like something he could be asked about in a debate. In fact Loeffler was asked that very question last night. She said that her opponent is a radical Marxist.
Comments