It's true: the Republican field is none of my business. In a strictly partisan sense, I await the emergence of their nominee. In almost every other sense, it rather is of concern to all of us, right?
Saturday night's debate wrote much of the script for and framed the week's coverage. I'll point to just one network news episode, though the list of possibles is like a smorgasbord. If ever there were a case of the act of observation affecting the thing observed, which I believe is layman's Heisenberg, it was in the director's cutaway during Gingrich's fidelity answer.
This clip has aired so many times, I'm sure you know of what I speak. Right when Newt gets to the God's forgiveness part, there's Calista at her Central Casting best.
Directors we should stipulate, perforce, must earn their keep.
I'm reminded of C-SPAN's coverage of some of the presidential debates past. One channel had the typical reaction shots by the other candidate, shots around the hall and different camera angles on the speaker in no discernably prescribed order.
The other had fixed camera shots in split screen, so when one guy stood down and looked over notes or whatnot, he was still on camera.
Forget the practicalities of a split screen in these circumstances, the readiness of the switch to camera Calista at that precise moment is a level of forethought I'm disappointed to have to think about.
Worse than any raindrops keeping falling on anyone's head during any cowboy picture.
And the coverage, to my way of thinking, is all catawampus.
Take Rick Perry. Please.
The "oops" narrative, the civics gaffes, the hyper-wound maple syrup incident and so on, all fill the needs of an infotainment audience, but the depths of what a Perry presidency would look like are plumbed in relative isolation by the likes of Matt Taibbi, and not in many mainstream quarters.
This is not just an ordinary boob but a dangerous boob, like an escaped ninja-trained chimp.
With all due respect.
Cain is gone, so no sense belaboring, but recall how it was all cigarette boy, slow-mo smile and bimbo eruptions until the crowbar of reality exposed the cavernous voids of his so-called mind.
Think on this: Newt Gingrich has force-fed the narrative so successfully that the factual parts of his resumé are rarely able to overtake some outlandish pronouncement he's more than willing to double down on for another few days worth of cycle.
He is already indexed in the history of our country as tainted goods. That he is accorded the preogative of tailoring his coverage is deplorable.
And Romney.
The bet? Really?
His transgressions are so numerous that the "Obamneycare" Pawlentiism has become the least of anyone's worries.
He is proof of the proverbial voodoo George the father spoke of, as it takes massive layoffs to have instant profit and you can get more future profit by sitting on cash and waiting to pounce while still not hiring, perhaps until after the unions are de-certified and pensioners are given the bad news.
We're talking about his conservative bona-fides?
Bachmann's had her moments of gaffe and Santorum has had his paper towel/napkin sermon glory, Huntsman's is yet another case of fortune propping up an otherwise uninspired candidacy, yet somehow only Ron Paul among this group of also-rans is showing numbers.
Forget the Perot-like caricatures and perceived quirkiness, logical extension of his core beliefs trumps any resonance on issues like war, drugs, and wars on drugs.
Speaking of Trump: America found itself, once again, speaking of Trump.
The ego has landed.

One Small Step for Man

Salon.com
Comments
People vote for the person most like them, or, most likely to represent them and what they want and believe in. That means I'm not sure whether to be amused or horrified by the endless supply of self serving trash presented in the republican field. It's hard to discern which republican is most repugnant. Watching the whole spectacle disgusts and nauseates me.