Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 204: Circus sideshow 2020 Dems amp up absurdity as debate looms

Cory Booker
We all knew Democrat presidential candidates were infatuated with race, but who would’ve ever thought they’d become equally obsessed with age and physical shape?

As next week’s second round of Democrat primary “debates” looms it’s clear the two dozen or so remaining competitors (the field gained billionaire loon Tom Steyer but lost California gun-hating loser Eric Swalwell in the past few weeks) are desperately searching for something to set themselves apart from their fellow dreamers. Predictably, polls since last month’s first forums (in Miami on June 26 and 27) have stabilized and show former Vice President Joe Biden maintaining a healthy double-digit lead with around 30 percent of the committed support.

Democrat socialist Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren are nearly tied for second place with a shade under 15 percent each, and “I was that girl” mandatory bussing advocate and first debate star Kamala Harris occupies fourth position at 12 percent. The rest are mired deep down in single digits, which means they’ll be all the more desperate to make an impression next week in Detroit (on CNN). It’s only the end of July, yet time runs short for most of the candidates to establish a running lane. If voters don’t think you’re viable soon, you’re toast.

Sen. “I am Spartacus” Cory Booker (polling at less than two percent) got a head start on his quest for notoriety by calling President Donald Trump names…and not the usual ones, either (you know, racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc.). No, Booker’s taken to saying Trump is physically feeble. Ellie Bufkin reported at The Washington Examiner, “On a Monday night appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers, Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker recounted a recent interaction with a supporter who encouraged Booker to ‘punch Donald Trump in the face.’ Booker says he declined the suggestion saying, ‘Dude, that's a felony, man’ but said that his ‘testosterone’ often makes him want to physically attack the president.

“Booker then said that the better route to defeating Trump would be at the ballot box saying that physically attacking an ‘Elderly, out-of-shape man’ and a ‘physically weak specimen’ such as Donald Trump would not be the most effective way to make changes in the country.

“The New Jersey senator then said that Trump was a ‘bully’ and ‘body shamer’ and now is the time to elect a leader like Booker, who intends to set an example of civility in the White House.”

You can’t help but chuckle at this -- one politician calling another a “bully” and “body shamer” a moment after he’d just described that same person as “elderly” and “out-of-shape.” Sometimes you wonder if these people watch tapes of themselves speaking or giving interviews -- it’d be a revealing experience, for sure.

The whole notion that a supposedly serious presidential candidate has to expand on the reasons why he wouldn’t punch the current chief executive in the face is a sign of the times. It’s doubtful many Ted Cruz supporters approached the senator (and then presidential contender) and implored him to bludgeon Obama right between the eyes in 2016. And if such an encounter ever took place it’s unlikely Cruz would reply that he couldn’t carry out the deed because it’s against the law and he’d be jailed.

So much for civil discourse among politicians. But with today’s Democrats, they need to say interesting and ear-catching stuff lest they further blend in with the others’ white noise and lose whatever identity they might’ve already created to this point. Booker is a nobody senator from a bluer than blue state who isn’t known for anything other than being a liberal, male (purportedly) and for his African-American complexion. As the lone (major) black male in the Democrat race Booker seeks to use his “testosterone” (his words) to demonstrate he’s more “man” than Trump.

Has the 2020 race now devolved into a street brawl mentality with various politicians claiming they’re superior physical specimens to their opponents? Booker’s case is particularly fascinating, considering he wasn’t exactly a streets-toughened scrapper in his youth. According to Victor Davis Hanson, “Booker grew up in the affluent and nearly all-white suburbs of New Jersey, the child of two IBM executives who sent him to Stanford, after which he became a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate.”

Not to mention, Cory headed west to Stanford in his teens on a football scholarship (which subsequently didn’t pan out -- he was a bust). So true, he’s strong, but not that gifted. SBNation.com described his playing career as thus, “[Booker’s] main problem was a lack of athleticism. The best tight ends have really good feet and move like they’re much smaller, but Booker plods. … If you matched up a linebacker on him man-to-man, it’d be a recipe for him to get shut down too often.”

Still, would Cory be able to take Donald in a clash? There’s a 23-year age difference and Trump’s got a lot more to do in his day job, so the president probably isn’t able to exercise as much as Booker does. But Trump’s also exceptionally energetic and doesn’t act like a man in his seventies. Obviously the “fight” point is moot -- but it’s not like Trump is a decrepit “elderly” guy who’s barely able to extricate himself from a chair.

Not to mention Trump is several years the junior of the Democrats’ two leading white male candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. If Cory thinks Trump is “elderly” and “out-of-shape,” would he concede the same about his own political kin? Sure, Biden thinks he can stake his mental and physical fitness on the fact he can do more pushups than the president, but what would this prove (even if it were true)?

Is there anyone in America who would base their vote on the hypothetical winner of a Trump vs. (unnamed Democrat) physical confrontation or head-to-head body evaluation? At worst it’d be a wash between Trump and the Democrat current top three (lumping in the less-than-physically-imposing 70-year-old “Pocahontas” Warren) and he wouldn’t necessarily stack up poorly against the fifty-something female Democrats either. Who’s stronger, Trump, or Kamala Harris (54), Amy Klobuchar (59) or Kirsten Gillibrand (52)? (Notice we didn’t ask which pol was meaner or more ferocious, areas where the catty Democrats would clearly prevail!)

Should we set the stage for an arm-wrestling exhibition tournament between them?

It’s no secret most men are physically stronger than most women. If Booker swears Trump is a “physically weak specimen,” would he get away with defining his female senate colleagues the same way? Or would the 6’3” 200+ pound Trump also have an unfair advantage vis-à-vis the diminutive 5’8” “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg in Booker’s estimation?

It’s all stupid, isn’t it? But this is Democrat politics we’re talking about. If Cory Booker goes on late night TV and elucidates on how his “testosterone” often makes him crave to physically assault the president, isn’t it fair game to mention? Talk about impulse control issues. And Democrats say Trump isn’t “fit” to be president. How can they sleep at night?

Besides, if you leave the Democrats alone long enough, maybe they’ll eliminate each other -- and it wouldn’t take a proverbial cage match to do it, either. Seth McLaughlin reported at The Washington Times, “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard … said Sen. Kamala D. Harris is not qualified to be president because she lacks the foreign policy credentials and temperament to lead the nation on the global stage.

“’I think one of the things that I am most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief,’ the Hawaii Democrat said on Outkick the Coverage with Clay Travis. ‘I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. She has no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander-in-chief.’”

“Ms. Gabbard, who served in Iraq as a member of the Hawaii National Guard, said she has seen firsthand what it is like to have presidents who lack foreign policy experience fall under the influence of the ‘foreign policy establishment’ and the ‘military industrial complex.’”

Hmmm… Gabbard didn’t name the presidents she was referring to but don’t her words precisely illustrate just about all of the 2020 Democrat candidates? Plus, the last two Democrat presidents -- Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- certainly correspond, neither having had much extra-territorial experience to fall back on. At least President Trump extensively traveled the world prior to his political career…and he’d met with a plethora of foreign leaders at one time or another.

Military experience alone wouldn’t necessarily make Gabbard a shoe-in qualifier for the next White House occupant, but she’s offered a salient -- and true -- observation about Harris (though in the same Victor Davis Hanson article cited above he relayed how Kamala traveled a lot as a child and lived for a long period of time in Canada).

One can only imagine if/when Harris pecks at another of her fellow candidates next week that Gabbard will jump in with the foreign policy experience angle (they’ll be together on stage for the second night’s Democrat forum). The icy stare the Hawaii congresswoman will likely receive in return from Harris would freeze Waimea Bay solid. So much for climate change and its impending destruction of the earth. Kamala will halt the rise of the oceans in one moment alone.

Running for president is a tough business and no one says it’s fair for all the participants. Drawing early attention and support is essential to mounting a viable campaign, which means Democrats will say some crazy stuff in the lead up to next week’s debates…and afterwards, too.

Share this