Once again we don’t understand the Donald. How mysterious this guy is. How is it that what he clearly says and does is never what he later says he meant? If the Donald ever gets to 1600, this will clearly keep Vladimir Putin off balance. Not to mention everybody in the lower 48. And we would have to expand the cabinet to include a Secretary of Incredible Clarifications.
First it was a tasteless remark about Fox reporter Megyn Kelly being under the influence of her menstrual cycle while questioning Trump during the first Republican debate. Then it was a crack about Carly Fiorina’s looks that Trump later said was about her persona. Sure Donald, everyone starts comments about someone’s persona by saying, “Look at that face.”
Now, after saying “You oughta see this guy,” and making jerking motions with his arms, Trump mocked disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski at a South Carolina campaign event.
Kovaleski, who suffers from a joint impairment, drew the Trump ire, and this latest in a long string of tasteless responses, for daring to question Trump’s claim of seeing thousands of Jersey City residents cheering the 9-11 attack on the day. (Just about everyone else paying the slightest attention has also questioned it. The TV channel Trump says he saw this on must be one only he receives.)
After the totally deserved storm of criticism of this crude and juvenile demonstration, once again comes the Donald to say that what we saw and heard was not what we saw and heard. Just as “Look at that face” had nothing to do with La Fiorina’s looks, imitating a disabled person’s movements was not mocking the man’s disability. Right, Donald. And a wild bear won’t you-know-what in the woods, and the Pope’s not a Catholic. (OK, this last is perhaps not the best example just now, but you take the point.)
Part of the Donald’s defense is that he claims not to know Kovaleski and did not know he was handicapped. Not the case, says Kovaleski, who claims to have covered the Donald for years, to have interviewed him in his office, and to have been on first-name basis with him.
Wow. Had I gone to Las Vegas a year ago, I wonder what kind of odds I could have gotten that the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination less than a year from the election would be a guy cruder than George Wallace in 1968 and with less credibility than the New York Times (or at least one NYT reporter). We are in uncharted territory.
None of Trump’s crudities, oddities, and transparent deficiencies to this point have hurt him in the polls. And this philistine display may not either. Could it be that about a quarter of Republican voters have so identified with Trump’s justified anger at the failures and weaknesses of the Republican establishment, an anger that echoes their own, that they refuse to look past the anger to the rest of the toxic package?
Seeing through the shortcomings of the Washington establishment is no challenge. The guy who is daily on the third barstool from the left can do it without breaking a sweat or missing a round. But firmly grasping the obvious and harrumphing about it is not a qualification for high office. There must be more. A lot more. It’s called substance. In the case of the Donald, we’re waiting to see what that more might be (or not).
Pardon the abrupt transition, but the face most often seen on Fox News is not that of Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, or, alas, Andrea Tantaros. No, the face of Fox News is William Devane, who appears on the cable news channels dozens of times each day, far more often than these other worthies, to excite the gold-bugs to buy. In one of his pitches he says, “There is a serious discussion on who our next president should be.”
I guess he’s referring to the current presidential campaign. This is serious? Gee, William. Have you ever seen frivolous?