Knock me over with a feather…she’s usually so vacuous and such a pawn of the right wing, I thought I’d never get a bit of information from her. But to my surprise, she brings a revelation. It’s kind of a stupid revelation, but it actually is something I didn’t know. And don’t really care about.
People love to play identity politics around elections, exploiting the differences of various candidates and straining to imbue them with meaningful meaning that truly means something.
Whether it’s Barack Obama’s race, Hillary Clinton’s gender, John McCain’s age or Mitt Romney’s faith, purveyors of identity politics (on both sides of the aisle) say these things will inform — for better or worse — their policies, should they become president.
The latest? Lindsey Graham, the longtime South Carolina senator, could be the first lifelong bachelor president elected since James Buchanan in 1856.
That’s nice, I guess. I really wasn’t concerned about the marital status of any of the candidates (except Clinton’s, which is constantly waved around in the news). I don’t know anything about Huckabee’s, or Santorum’s, or Carson’s, or Fiorina’s, or Cruz’s spouses, so if you told me any of them weren’t married, I wouldn’t be shocked or surprised. I haven’t seen any news that makes a big deal of Graham’s marital status, either.
Except for this thing from Cupp.
Why, it’s almost as if she’s trying to gin up a controversy where one doesn’t exist.
I’m also wondering why someone who is so consistently pro-Republican would bring it up. It’s not as if it is something that would annoy a liberal — that Graham never say a war he didn’t want join is more than enough — but it might alienate some of the obsessively pro-straight-marriage folks who are disappointed that he doesn’t have 19 kids. Is she trying to encourage conflict in her own party?
At least Cupp continues to promote her own irrelevance!