I WATCHED the presidential debate last night and was amazed at how the man famous for being a fighter left so much of what Hillary said unchallenged. I thought he would crush the Queen of War. He did not. He was forceful at moments, but at other times he seemed to give it away.As I said, he had good moments — when he hammered home how many blacks have been killed in Chicago in response to Hillary’s “Black Lives (Don’t) Matter” rhetoric, when he mentioned endless war in the Middle East, when he slammed Bill Clinton for approving NAFTA and when he spoke of the loss of manufacturing — but he did not bring up the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the women abused and mistreated by Bill (with Hillary’s help), or the real national security threat behind the e-mail scandal. (There are other issues that we would not expect him to mention.) Hillary was at the top of her game, rested and smiling smugly, even triumphantly, in her bright red (“I’m patriotic!”), Maoist pantsuit. Clearly, reports of her illness are exaggerated. She was sharp and unflappable. Every socialist cliché was readily at her disposal. The rich will be dispossessed! Families will be able to juggle the impossible! Everyone will get to college! Her drapery-cutting father will be vindicated! (If only Trump had said to her repeated references to her proletarian father: “Look, Hillary, you’ve never cut a drape in your life. But you probably bought lots of them with the hundreds of millions you made from your Clinton Cash scam.” The man was strangely contained. Where was his famous independence?)

Trump’s comments on the loss of manufacturing and how it has devastated certain areas were filled with conviction. (He threw in a characteristic overstatement, saying that other countries are “stealing” our jobs, when in fact American companies have left voluntarily.) He was the businessman trying to get a good deal for America, but his answer on why he has not released his income tax statements was poor. He was too busy shilling for Israel (the Iran deal) to talk much about the issue that propelled him to the presidential nomination: mass immigration. He said the single most important issue to him is nuclear weaponry. (What about the many other countries that have nuclear weapons?) Think of how he could have increased his appeal if he had explicitly promised no war, no intervention in the Middle East. He did not.

Hillary made Trump look bad on the issue of Obama’s birth certification. Why didn’t he say that it would not have been an issue in the first place if Obama had released his birth certificate as all presidents are required to do?

She once again publicly accused Russia of interfering in the presidential election. How can she get away with an unsubstantiated, provocative claim like this?

Finally, Trump gave a strong endorsement of his opponent at the end of the debate, coming right out and saying that he would support Hillary if she won.

The Constitution has been undermined. The banksters own us. And America is morally a mess. Neither of these liberals, with their promises of free childcare (both candidates endorsed more government-funded institutionalization of young children), offer hope of freeing America from debt enslavement and intensifying social decadence. But the pantsuit queen, with her warmongering and her hatred of the family, is much the scarier of the two. Lester Holt began with a nice plug for her though, saying the economy is doing just fine!

— Comments —

“A Grateful Reader” writes:

In last night’s debate, the man spoke swiftly, searched for words, and gestured readily, he even showed human vulnerability by drinking often, whereas, his opponent appeared supremely polished and calm, almost supernaturally so. Never having seen or heard either of them speak at length (eschewing news and screens), I don’t know how they typically behave on camera; but she possessed extraordinary oratorical skills last night. She could effortlessly deceive, always sounding confident and righteous, even when she portrayed herself as a victim. I could not bear to watch, but I managed to endure the first fifteen minutes, after which I shut myself in my room and prayed during the remainder of the debate, almost as if I needed an exorcism.

Indeed, it made me want to run! (Surely, watching nearly anything on television today causes people to want to run; therefore, to help people break their running habits, we must exhort them to break their viewing habits.) A walk in the woods this morning further helped to erase the disturbing memory of the debate. While the trees remain covered in late-summer green, the brown forest floor is filled with gold, orange, red, and yellow leaves . We wish you a Happy Autumn.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

It’s interesting. I think you saw things so clearly. Hillary was preternaturally confident.

TK writes:

I watched the debate, stunned that Trump allowed himself to be on his heels most of the time. I knew HC would come out looking healthy and energetic. All the prattling on about her health, like the announcers curse in golf, would make it so. Hardly a word about immigration, refugees or terrorism by Trump. What the hell? I spent the debate yelling at my television, telling Trump what to say. He never said it. It was like she had the questions beforehand and prepared a snide response for any eventuality. I don’t care what the online polls or the Trump surrogates said, he was trounced. A few good jabs here and there, but the rest of the time he was on his heels defending nonsense. And she looked so smug, witch-like, letting him hang himself with his own rope. Listen Mr. Trump, western civilization hangs in the balance. Get your act together and stop responding to baited traps. Immigration, refugees, terrorism, law and order and then trade and jobs, damn it.

Laura writes:

There are a few possible explanations for why he did so poorly:

* He’s lost his wind. It’s been knocked out of him. One can only take being called a Nazi so much. (I have been critical of Trump, but I have never thought he is racist or fascist.)

* He’s been advised by his daughter, Ivanka, to present a softer image. (Thank you to Mike King of The Anti-New York Times for this plausible theory.)

* He was unprepared or tired.

* He spent the previous afternoon with one of his top buddies, Benjamin Netanyahu, and did not really have America’s interests on his mind. He had the Iran deal on his mind.

* He never intended to win in the first place.

Whatever the reason, his harping on his business experience is not going to help him. It’s not enough to be a successful businessman. People supported him because of his nationalism.

Paul writes:

I am a big Trump supporter but not because I think he’s the cat’s meow.  I was astounded at his laziness.  As you say, maybe he was advised to play nice (by some moron).

He wasn’t concentrating, nor was he prepared.  He is reputedly very smart, and I don’t doubt that based on his credentials and success.  But he doesn’t show it in a debate.  He seems unable to stick to the point when debating publicly.  I bet he does stick to the point when negotiating his big deals around a table.  He failed to concentrate and shake his head as he explained the pettiness of Clinton’s reference to what he called Rosy O’Donnell and further explained that Clinton has been participating in such pettiness and in outright lies to destroy the reputations of scores of non-public women who dared to tell the truth about her husband.  (And he should have been prepared to add more on that point and kept digging at her. Her smile would have been gone for the night as he should have kept bringing it up.)

She attacked him for attacking women (via the use of the laughable Rosy O’Donnell), and he then tried to excuse his failure to respond (obliquely) during the debate and later explicitly by saying he did not want to humiliate her daughter sitting in front.  (He promises to get tougher next time around. I hope so.)  That was an unforgivable mistake.  No excuse.  He repeatedly failed to pick up on the openings Clinton and the liberal moderator gave him.

He should have had a long, long (he is trying to be President) written list of questions and answers to study before going into that debate.  He should have been able to respond instantly and coherently to the obvious questions he was going to be asked.  The man is running for President of the USA, and he was not concentrating or prepared.  Shooting from the hip doesn’t work in court and is not going to work in his future debates.  At his level, he needs to prepare over and over again against an opponent until he has it down pat.  He would then be free and calm enough to use his intellect to handle unexpected situations.

Gosh.  Is he refusing to prepare and to study questions and responses that I suggest he and his smart team could prepare?  I’ll bet he is refusing.  These are one-on-one battles, not the free-for-all primary debates.

Is this how he behaves during a negotiation?  I find that oral argument is similar to negotiating.  Bombast is out of order and gets you nowhere.  I doubt he is bombastic during a negotiation.  Too much is at stake.  You must know all the facts and anticipate, to the extent possible, your opponent’s arguments.  (It still amazes me how some lawyers, particularly older lawyers, use bombast.  Do they think they are going to scare another lawyer at the table?  It is personality and boring.)  Catching Clinton in the gutter should be a priority for him.

Please follow and like us: