Sitting in a tree.
Last night Senator Bob Corker took to Twitter — like so many brave keyboard commandos — saying it was “imperative” for Trump to accept election results, even if the outcome is unfavorable. It was the yappy lap-dog definition of “all bark,” since Corker’s endorsement stands. Like so many Republicans this cycle Mr. Corker, a smallish man, and adorable in his junior-sized suits and cute little shoes, has been rendered almost entirely ridiculous by a candidate he’s clearly embarrassed by, but upholds as America’s only hope for a brighter tomorrow.
It is imperative that Donald Trump clearly state that he will accept the results of the election when complete.
— Bob Corker (@BobCorker) October 20, 2016
Bob Corker Has Tiny Feet And It’s Funny When He Stamps Them
Enough of that. I’m not here to bash Corker — silly as he is — or to criticize Trump either. If anything, I want to express some sympathy for a poor devil, so deep into his own narcissism he couldn’t think beyond who was wronging him and who was crediting him long long enough to realize the debate moderator, Chris Wallace, was tossing him softballs made out of pure red meat. Guns? Abortion? Grand bargains— the ultimate Republican Viagra? A reasonably versed Conservative could have grabbed hold of all these opportunities and owned the night. But, unfortunately for both the GOP and America, that candidate didn’t show up.
What happened last night wasn’t a debate, it was an informercial for Hillary Clinton. When a candidate — in this case Trump — opens with “Nobody has more respect for women than me,” then hisses, “Such a nasty woman,” in the drama’s falling action, this is what we in the storytelling business call a narrative arc. Over the course of that arc Clinton was able to talk about policy using clear, connecting language. She was able to make powerful statements directly to women, all of whom know what it’s like to be dismissed and belittled by a man. And she was able to get away with a lot of stuff that needed challenge and critique. The new border technologies she was talking about? Probably drones, not forcefields. And can we have more particulars about “no fly zones” that bring us into close quarters with the Russian army? Instead of thoughtful comment pushing his opponent into deeper conversation, the best we got from Trump was, “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.” Sniff.
[pullquote-1] There’s no real point in parsing the details of last night’s debate — though I could go on for pages about Trump’s inner city comments, with all the blacks, and the Latinos, where you can’t walk to the store without getting shot. But at this point in the race particulars aren’t all that relevant. Trump’s trailing. Worse, his downward trend suggests he had to do more than just show improved discipline. He had high benchmarks to hit in terms of clarity and temperament. He never got close, undermining all improvement with his refusal to accept an unfavorable election outcome. That’s the thing Corker took him to task for. On Twitter. In his little suit and shoes. While still endorsing the man. While still supporting the man. While, presumably, still voting for the man.
“Imperative.” Ha!
Maybe it’s not fair using Corker as the stand in for a Republican party that’s failed America by standing steadfastly behind a lazy-minded candidate who doesn’t know the difference between a challenge and a threat. But somebody needs to tell him, and all the rest of these little boys using big boy words and playing big boy games, that fake tough is the weakest hand you can play.
I wish I could say America deserves better, but to borrow a line from the comparatively competent Romney campaign, we built this. So stamp away little Bobby. Stamp away.
