Many here have commented on the GOP’s supposed clown car of candidates, but many of those running are at the very least entertaining. Maybe not on purpose, and I have difficulty telling them apart, but with their, um, interesting ideas they always deliver.
The Dems, not so much. Excepting Bubba Clinton, whose administration kept things lively, their politicians have been deadly dull for forty years. I mean, Brother Jimmy gave me some hope, what with his mouthy mom (was that Miss Lillian or Clara Peller?) and village idiot brother, but after “lust in my heart” he went straight downhill. And the current crop? Bernie’s a decent man with good ideazzzz-z-z-z-z. Hillary has passed Barry the Earnest and Gore the Bore, caught Dull Dukakis, and is nipping at the heels of John Kerry the John Kerry to reach the job of Mayor of Dullsville.
Where are the LBJs of yesteryear? That man made an art of [del]pissing people off[/del] keeping the electorate entertained. Can you see Hillary picking up a dog by its ears? Sure, before she sacrificed it on Walpurgis Night, but she’d never eat it on camera. Not anymore, at least. And would Sanders show us his surgical scar? Um, old Jewish guy? Probably, but that’s not my point, which is that the Democratic Party has allowed an interest gap to form between it and the GOP. All we have given the American People is a choice between policy wonks, and while that may result in good governance, it’s terrible for keeping folks’ attention.
Somebody has to play the straight man. Think of the Republicans as Jerry Lewis, an idiotic man-child who does funny voices, makes faces, and speaks nonsensically; and the Democrats as Dean Martin, who croons softly to keep his sanity, and almost always gets the girl.
The OP probably wasn’t alive in 1964. LBJ campaigned as the wise and calm elder. Republican Barry Goldwater said things that would make him king of the party today, lines that that were summarized in the bumper sticker “In Your Guts, You Know He’s Nuts.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether a President is ‘entertaining’ or not, as long as he or she is at least moderately competent. If I want entertainment, there’s plenty to choose from on TV.
With that said, Mr. Obama may indeed be overly earnest at times, but he has proven repeatedly that he can deliver a pro-level one-liner.
Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago, where politics is our favorite year-round spectator sport. He knows how to play the games, but these days he mostly has to play the World Leader one. That’s why he needs Luther, his anger translator. Trump, OTOH, needs a World Leader translator.
Obama was very exciting at first. The first black president after 8 years of Bush had many many people excited.
Sanders is very exciting. Warren is exciting even though she isn’t running. Pretty much anyone who can tap into the resentment and anger over the plutocratic and corrupt nature of US politics gets people excited.
Part of it is also that the GOP candidates, at least some of them tend to be pretty extreme in their views which is funny. Plus right wing authoritarians may score higher on dogma and lower on introspection/self awareness than other political groups which means you get a group that says crazy, hypocritical things with a straight face which is funny.
I’ve wondered this myself. There are liberal politicians and celebrities who are as outspoken, entertaining, or crazy as any Republican candidate. But ever since Al Sharpton and Screamin’ Howard Dean dropped out of the race in 2004, none of them have been on stage at a Democratic Presidential debate. I have no explanation to offer.
Somehow that doesn’t surprise me. There are a lot of terrible pundits on both sides (though I think there are definitely more on the right) and that sounds about the level of thought that Cal Thomas would put into a column.
What did he do from 2001 to 2007 when he couldn’t blame everything on Clinton or the Democrats?