Is there anything more fascinating and disturbing than the Republicans' deliberate break with reality in all of their public statements? Well, I would say it is the general reporting of such brazen craziness from one political party as largely unremarkable news.
Here is a recent example. Remember the leaked memo by Darrell Issa that showed the White House talking with YouTube about "the video" before the Benghazi attacks were over? House Republicans were mad because disclosure of the memo contradicts their theory that the video was an after-the-fact coverup. So, below, Rand Paul pivots, goes on TV and expresses his outrage and sadness that the reason a plane could not be found to fly special operations forces to Benghazi was because they were on the phone with YouTube instead!
FOX HOST ERIC BOLLING: “So this is kind of startling news that the White House was on the phone with YouTube as the attacks were still taking place that night, saying, Hey, did you see what’s causing this? They were already being political at that moment.”
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-Ky.): “You know, I’m appalled by it. One of the things that’s interesting is that very night, they were still struggling to get reinforcements. We had some more Special Operations forces in Tripoli. They couldn’t find a plane for them. So instead of calling to get a plane or to try to make arrangements to get a plane, they’re on the phone trying to create spin to say that, ‘You know what? This is about a video, which never had anything to do with this attack.’ So you know, it saddens me. Doesn’t surprise me, but does sadden me.”
That exchange, simply, is crazy talk. Who was on the phone with YouTube? "They." The military commanders were on the phone with YouTube? You mean "the White House"? The White House should have been "calling around" to find a special forces airplane - - which existed but the White House forgot to call the pilots??
And not to belabor the point, but both House and Senate committees have extensive public testimony that 1. The military ordered that special forces not be sent to Benghazi but instead to protect the real embassy in Tripoli, 2. The military stands by that decision today, and 3. Later assessments showed that no plane would have made it there in time any way.
Aside from that reality, not too long ago Rand Paul's statements would have been disqualifying as a presidential candidate. You think the White House has one phone? You think the President personally locates and orders individual flights? You expect to be directing active military engagements by telephone from the Oval Office? My god . . . .
But what is equally remarkable is that in relatively recent memory the fact that a leading Republican candidate went on TV and strangely accused the sitting President of treason and complicity in the death of four Americans would have been front page news. It still would be if Hillary said this. But we have so internalized the notion that Republicans should be permitted to act crazy that I pulled this story from a Washington Post "fact checker" column. After 20 paragraphs, it got "Four Pinocchios." http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Um, excuse me. What Rand Paul said on nationwide television is not just offensive and wrong, but is scary and loony when coming from a presumptive presidential candidate. Covering the statement in a "fact checker" column is bizarre and irresponsible as well. When, and why, did it stop being a news story when leading politicians begin to sound a little disconnected from reality? Shouldn't there be some direct journalist pressure for a candidate not to engage in cynical fantasy (or worse, experience a genuine break with reality)? If a candidate said "I hear voices in my head," should the press struggle with whether the candidate is lying, or assign it to a "fact-checker"? Or should the story be "Candidate X Has Raised Serious Concerns About His Fitness For Office"? And when the press responsibly does the latter, don't you think Republican discourse will come just a little closer to reality? I didn't agree much with Bob Dole, but I don't remember him talking about his own imaginary world . . . That would have been a problem back then, no?