The most frequently quoted snippet from the recent GOP debate was this excellent bit of political evasion:
Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?
Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.
Ah, a funny, cute little answer. Of course, it's so intellectually dishonest I want to rip my arms off. But, boy, that Huckabee feller sure can charm 'em...at least that's how the media narrative developed around the little quip. "He loves Jesus and he's funny! Woo Hoo!"
I don't like picking on Huckabee here, since he's far less guilty than his fellow GOPers of using "The Great Line" whitewash to avoid contentious discussions. But I got quite angry seeing this.
In a Washington Post chat with political reporter Lois Romano, you see the distillation of the Beltway Reporter Syndrome, where she allows Huckabee to get away with this utter evasion.
{M]y guess is that Huckabee made a quick judgment that it was not a question for a 90-second sound bite. Both religion and the death penalty are very complicated topics.
The Religious Right, more than any other political sector, has made a living off bludgeoning opponents with complexity-free bumper stickers. "Abortion is Murder" "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" "Little Boys are for Touching" Etc.
But when faced with a truly difficult question that challenges religious orthodoxy, the political press just lets Huckabee get away with "The Great Line." I have no problem with the disproportionate attention lavished on political theater, but when that theater is a deliberate deceit to move your eyes away from a major hole in a political party's platform, that pisses me off.
2 comments:
Your blog post really took me back. I haven't seen any of those "Little Boys are for Touching" bumper stickers since the first Reagan administration when they were de rigueur in Christian conservative circles. I've never understood why they phased those out.
But seriously (because I was actually kidding about the previous thing), that Lois Romano quote was priceless. "Both religion and the death penalty are very complicated topics." Yes, and of course health care, global warming, the mortgage crisis, and diplomatic relations with Pakistan are very simple issues which are easily distilled into sound bites and therefore good fodder for presidential debates. Wait--actually they are not, so I guess candidates can use one-off laugh lines to avoid those topics too ("Global warming, more like global BORING!!!").
It's rather frightening that someone who could make a statement that basically amounts to "Religion is, like, complicated and hard to talk about" is the White House reporter for the WaPo.
Yeah, and I love the idea that BECAUSE it's complicated, voters should be OK with the cheap laugh line...rather than being pissed that he's dismissing a legitimate and complicated question.
And I hear Mark Foley's suped-up cherry red Mustang still has that vintage bumper sticker...and a glove compartment filled with Lik-M-Aid.
Post a Comment