Donald Trump has finally found a Republican platform he can inspect without reading: the cheekbones. Somewhere in America, a campaign staffer is deleting the health-care section of a briefing book and replacing it with a headshot. The candidate has been told to face the light, suck in his principles, and try to look affordable.
Key Takeaways
- AP reports Trump is pitching candidates by praising their appearance.
- A good headshot still does not constitute a governing plan.
- Our proposed pageant includes a talent round. Explaining a vote would be a refreshing entry.
The actual quote has escaped the satire department
In AP's October 18 report, Trump calls Kentucky House candidate Ed Gallrein "Central casting." Discussing Ohio Sen. Jon Husted, he says, "I examined his ass." He praises Mike Collins while mocking Jon Ossoff's appearance. Ken Paxton receives an unfavorable review, too.
For the record, nobody in this newsroom had to improve that material. We put the keyboard down, backed away slowly, and let the president do whatever the hell that was.
There are many ways to evaluate a prospective senator. Read his record. Ask about his priorities. Find out whether he understands the job. Donald apparently wants to rotate the merchandise and inspect it under showroom lighting. Somewhere, a used-car salesman is asking him to keep it professional.
The important distinction is that a jawline can be firm without a single conviction behind it. You can photograph the first. The second usually requires a difficult vote.
Welcome to our entirely fictional Miss MAGA pageant
In our proposed format, the opening round is simple. Each contestant walks across the stage while an announcer reads his qualifications: excellent posture, reassuring hair, and the ability to agree with Donald before Donald finishes changing his mind.
Next comes evening wear. Candidates may choose navy, darker navy, or the suit they wore while explaining that their previous criticism of Trump had been taken out of context by the existence of a recording.
The talent competition should be a ratings smash. One contestant balances a constitutional obligation on his nose. Another turns a disastrous answer into a fundraising email. A third performs a daring escape from a reporter who has asked the same perfectly reasonable question twice.
Then comes the question every contestant has rehearsed: what would you do if the president were wrong? A hush falls over the room. The orchestra begins playing them off before anyone risks an answer.
Miss Congeniality goes to whoever describes the question as unfair.
Handsome is doing a lot of unpaid work here
Imagine taking this pitch to an ordinary job interview. Your accountant cannot explain the discrepancy, but the three-quarter profile is magnificent. Your roofer has no plan for the leak, although the shoulders do look executive. Your surgeon asks you to judge the consultation on whether he seems like a leading man.
You would leave. You would probably leave quickly enough to qualify for a sporting event.
Politics should not be the one profession where a beauty assessment gets to wander into the reference section. Looking like someone who plays a senator is a useful qualification for playing a senator. The actual job includes reading things after the cameras leave.
Nor is this an argument about which candidate is attractive. That is how the whole conversation becomes Donald's traveling mirror. Voters do not need to settle his personal rankings before asking what somebody intends to do with public power.
The man can have a marvelous chin. Ask him about the bill.
The question nobody can answer with a headshot
An endorsement ought to tell voters something useful. What judgment does this person bring? What has he done? What will he support? Where would he draw a line? If the answer is essentially that he looks terrific standing nearby, we have confused a representative with a decorative column.
The column may be handsome. It still cannot explain an amendment.
Our Enablers department already has plenty to say about the difference between holding an office and merely occupying space beside the boss. This adds a charming new personnel question: can the applicant look independent while waiting for instructions?
Put the candidates on a debate stage. Ask the follow-up. Make them explain the vote, the promise, and the contradiction. If all they have brought is a flattering photograph, the silence should be instructive.
Until then, congratulations to the contestants. Please collect your sash, your talking points, and your complimentary explanation of why the thing Donald said yesterday means something entirely different today.
The swimsuit round has been canceled. Nobody could locate a lifeguard willing to supervise this much shallow water.
Questions worth asking
Did Trump really make the Husted remark?
Yes. AP quotes him saying it at his Kentucky rally. The pageant above is our invention; the remark is his.
Is the point to argue about which candidate looks better?
No. The useful questions concern qualifications, judgment, a public record, and concrete commitments. A photograph answers none of them.
Did this cartooned pageant happen?
No. The pageant, judging scene, candidate sashes, and cartoon dialogue are invented satire. The candidates pictured are generic satirical contestants.
Receipts
Political satire and opinion. Real quotations are attributed above. The pageant and accompanying cartoon are fictional.
