Debating Two Against One

Hillary did a really nice job in the Hofstra debate - maybe better than that.  Good for her.   ‎

‎

And while I'm not suggesting that a fair fight would've been any different, it is quite something that Mr. Trump in these things is essentially fighting a two-against-one fight.   There were three notable and incredibly inappropriate run-ins with the supposedly sage and impartial Lester "Candy" Holt, as follows:

‎

1.  Stop-and-Frisk.  Holt asserted that the policy was held to be unconstitutional.   In fact, it was held unconstitutional by an activist and discredited judge in a decision that was angrily reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; after which Mayor di Blasio chose not to protect the City's options by abandoning the case.  Trump completely and accurately explained all that, but appeared to be arguing with some kind of deux-ex-machina Voice of Reason, who turned out to be an ignorant shill for a specific agenda. ‎

‎

2.  The Iraq War.  T‎rump has always been against the Iraq war, and in fact has strongly criticized Pres. (W.) Bush for the effort, to the consternation of many Republicans.  There is a single one-second throw-away line in a Howard Stern interview where, if one wanted to magnify the significance of that moment out of all conceivable rational proportion, it can be argued that there was a stand-alone statement of some vacillation.  Putting aside completely the proper resolution of that argument, Trump obviously should not have had to debate the point with the supposed . . . moderator.  ‎

‎

3.  The Birther Controversy.  There is legitimate controversy surrounding who promoted the birther controversy, with one possibility being the '08 Clinton campaign against Obama.  The issue is a complicated and nuanced one, and the small point here is that it's not up to the . . . moderator . . . to debate (yes, debate!) the point

So, at least in part, the moderator let his own views get the better of him and decided to go two-on-one against Trump with the other presidential candidate - on issues where he was somewhere between flat-out wrong or clearly uneducated, and was, at an absolute minimum, not right.  The words "shut up" come to mind.   ‎

Two more of these left to go.  Wow - I'm exhausted already.  I need a 400-pound hacker to fix the messaging.  

Onwards . . . ‎

No One There to Catch Her? - the Role of Big Mo'

People have correctly noted how there are ebbs and flows in elections, and, indeed, no one has shown that more than Donald Trump in this very cycle.  And so the question inevitably arises - if Trump comes out of the Debate with momentum, can this thing again bounce back the other way, towards and in favor of Clinton.  I respectfully suspect that the answer may well be, "no", because this situation is not like the other situations to which people point.  The most clear example of a bounce-back is after Obama's debacle (that's "debacle", not "debate") performance against Mitt Romney (remember him?).  Obama came back quickly, after the next debate.  But, here's the thing: Obama is incredibly likeable and incredibly charismatic, and had and has broad and strong affirmative support.  Reagan's early missteps against Carter and the subsequent path taken by the electorate resonate similarly.  Clinton, on the other hand, is despised and distrusted, and has an ever-shrinking and incredibly unenthusiastic core of support.  Pennsylvania is coming; even Colorado is coming.  The trappings of this situation has all the hallmarks of what happens when someone that no one like missteps and falters, . . . there simply may be no one there to catch her and break her fall.  And, if that's right, then you have a free fall, and one that is difficult or impossible to reverse.  But step one for The Donald is clearly, without a doubt, for him to come out of Hofstra with Big Mo'.  Can he do it?  Stay tuned, folks, it just may be about to get interesting.  Game on!

Sound Bites I'd Like to See

I don't know about y'all, but I'm actually surprised at the extent to which the run-up to this debate has actually been on the high-road side.  This whole cycle is the most amazing thing ever.  As Mark Twain said (this could be a paraphrase, so don't hold me to the exact words), the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to be credible.

Anyway, here are some sound bites I'd like to see at this upcoming Debate of All Debates:

- Stronger together?  Sure, that may be so when the person with whom you're working isn't a pathologically crazy person who is trying to kill you.  When someone comes after you wielding a knife, it's not the time to invite them over to a sit-down.  Just like the notion of keeping law-breakers out of our space is somehow the building of inappropriate walls rather than wonderful, happy bridges.  Your naivety is as reckless as it is dangerous.

- And, speaking of working together - you talk about an atmosphere of respect?  You're the one who calls me a reality-TV star.  I am the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.  You call my supporters deplorable.  They are hard-working Americans.  I've identified things you've actually done, and you hurl insults.  Please show some respect.

- I will put my record regarding women up against yours anytime.  I have women in senior positions throughout my business network, and, with no offense to my two grown boys, my beloved daughter Ivanka may well be my most trusted advisor.  You, on the other hand, were in the White House at a time when we saw what was arguably the most ugly and unfair abuse of sexual power in a workplace environment in the history of the world, and probably participated in the efforts to control the fallout.  I'll take my record over yours any day.

- You think that I hope someone shoots you?  That is so ridiculous and offensive that it is shameful.  I should not have to utter the obvious words that I do not wish any violence of any kind on you, but I'll utter them, because of the things you've said.  I do not wish any violence of any kind on you.  Just like I hope that, if you're elected, you are not physically frail and do not take ill.  These are obvious things and should not need to be said, but I guess in the poisonous atmosphere you're created here I have not choice but to say them.

- I've had companies go bankrupt?  Of course I have.  The capitalist system permits investors to invest and to try . . . and to fail.  I have, clearly, succeeded overall.  It would shock me if any one of your larger donors have not had at least one failed effort.  It's worth mentioning that this bankruptcy system is largely informed by the preferences of Democrats in Congress over the years.  I guess only Democrats should use the system?  And we're worried about creditors being left holding the bag?  These are banks that understand the risks of lending to corporations, and protect themselves as they see fit in extensive documents negotiated by high-paid lawyers.  We're supposed to cry for them when there's a loss among all their gains?  But I guess I would not expect you to understand these things.  You haven't grown one significant business venture, or created any significant amount of jobs, in your entire life.

- Madam Secretary, I would not even pretend to have the kind of detailed understand of the inner workings of government that you have.  What I have is an understanding of process, and a set of judgments as to how I think things should be.  Whatever you think of how I've run my business empire, I'm now going to put my skills and approaches to work for the American people.  To our enemies, I would not want to be on the other side of that.  We've had a history of insiders who understand government all to well trying to make a go of it, and we now are where we are.  It's time to try something else.

I guess we'll know a lot more after tomorrow night!  Woo hoo . . .

The NFL, President Obama and . . . Radical IslamicTerrrorism

It is sometimes so painful to watch the media unable or at least unwilling to report things as they are, when those things don't align with the media's politically-correct preferred narrative.  So it turns out that the President's taped 9/11 message was booed at a number of NFL games.

The media's response?  Those wacky fans.  Some misguided notion of NFL-style patriotism.  Some amorphous unfortunate lack of respect.

No!  No no no no no!!  Those are NOT the explanations.  The explanation is that, on this most solemn of all solemn days, we have a president giving a homily who will not use the words "radical Islamic terrorism" to describe what this world is facing.  So there are people that don't want to hear him on 9/11.  That's why.*

Get over yourselves, people - this country is fed up, and, come Election Day, may well not be willing to take it anymore.

_________
* And while the President bolsters the back-up quarterback and his minions and other supporters for disrespecting this country, we have, in pointed contrast, Donald Trump calling out that disrespect.  I respect their right to pipe up - there is no bigger supporter of the right to Free Speech than I - but there are consequences to one's exercise of that right.  In addition, we (and that includes the President) should remember that the right to Free Speech is in respect of governmental interference.  Private citizens are generally free to address the speech of others as they see fit.  It will be interesting to see how NFL fans react to the efforts of these self-appointed (and quite wealthy) protesters, indeed on 9/11 itself.

Hillary's Health - Conspiracy Theories, or Just Plain Ol' Theories?

So Hillary Clinton gets sick and goes home from a solemn and extremely significant 9/11 event.  And those who wonder aloud about her health are immediately labeled conspiracy theorists.  Well, let's deconstruct that:

1.  What if she IS of uncertain health?  Well then focusing upon that isn't something to be done by the Lunatic Fringe, but rather is something to be done by any right-minded (and that's correctly minded, not conservatively minded) American voter.  Especially given that completely useless vice-presidential nominee, questions surrounding Hillary's health are OF COURSE legitimate.  As I addressed in a previous post (along with a Seinfeld reference, to boot), allegations are not specious if they're true!  And the fact that she felt the need to leave such an important event can only increase the appropriate focus on this question.  She did look totally burnt out when she offered up her "despicables" gaffe, and one has to wonder if all of this is starting to get to her.  Well, I don't want someone in that office who can be reached in this way.

2.  So now let's say that she isn't overly sick.  Well, then, the question turns to - how could she leave such an important event if she really didn't have to do so?  Maybe that's even worse than the alternative.  She gets so flustered by less-than-urgent health matters that she has to absent herself from the "room"?!?  Well, isn't THAT scary?!?  She really needs to woman-up, if she's going to make the case that she should be The President Of The United States of America.

Either way, this is a lose-lose for Hillary.  And when you add the "despicables" gaffe to the mix, it's lose-lose-lose.  In that I'm clearly  one of the "despicables", who clearly is either a racist bigot or who is so overwhelmed by governmental mistreatment that he can't see straight, and who in any event is clearly and utterly irreparably unintelligent, I feel compelled to say, "OK now, Donald, you go, boy."

The Hillary of the Vanities

OK, so we now have two insults staring the non-left American electorate in the face.  Let's deconstruct them both in four or less sentences (each).

1.  Trump's supporters are a "basket of deplorables".  The guy won the Republican primary going away - a veritable stomping - and is just about even in polls for the general election.  The "deplorables" comment is just another example of the Left's guiding principle that: "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot and a moron [(yes, both)], and are otherwise indistinguishable from Attila the Hun."  Well, I politely beg to differ.

2.  The lack of "respect" being shown for President Obama and the "office of the Presidency" by the Right is somehow shameful and unpatriotic.  Really?  Can we look forward to Democratic support for Trump and the "Office of the Presidency" if Hillary loses?!?  Yeah, sure, right.

Goose/gander, and all that rot.  There's nothing Correct about the Left.  There's just a point of view - and maybe, just maybe, one that's not shared by every intelligent, capable and sensitive American across country.  Vanity is a dangerous characteristic.  See you in November . . .