Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Did You think Of NBC's Commander in Chief Forum?
Stately McDaniel Manor: Perhaps the most obvious lesson from the Commander in Chief Forum was something we already know: Donald Trump can be rational, effective, and even a bit presidential. Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest, crooked, and dangerous presidential candidate of my lifetime.
His performance may well foreshadow his debate performances, and if so, that could be the difference between winning and losing. The election remains his to lose. Seemingly, whenever he is pulling ahead, he says something incredibly dense, like praising Vladimir Putin, which has the potential to submerge him again. Fortunately, that particular gaffe probably won’t damage him much, if it all, but I’ll cover that in another article.
Still, Trump is in a sense, a blank slate. He hasn’t destroyed entire nations, created a scam charity/personal slush fund, badly damaged national security and labored mightily to destroy the rule of law. He hasn’t subverted the legitimacy of the FBI, the IRS, the DOJ, the State Department and many other federal agencies. His “lies” are generally more New Yawk bluster and BS than actual lies, and they don’t conceal innumerable federal felonies. It’s unlikely he’ll turn the Supreme Court into a gaggle of progressive rubber stampers that think the Constitution an impediment to progressive glory and eternal rule, rather than the law of the land. He has the very real potential to do a great deal of good, particularly if he does half what he’s promised and repeals Obamacare, rolls back federal regulations, improves the economy, stops destroying coal and oil jobs, and enforces immigration law. He actually could undo a great deal of the damage of the Obama/Clinton years, and those possibilities were on display at the CiC Forum.
Most importantly, Trump not only does not hate our military, he appears to actually respect those that wear the uniform, and might be willing to listen to their good advice. He appears hawkish, but demonstrates little military and national security acumen. This is not surprising, considering his life as a businessman. However, he does have a track record of hiring capable people and getting difficult things done, and has a far more realistic view of our deadly enemies than virtually any progressive.
Trump has potential, and displayed it. Under him, it’s possible America will not decline further, and might even improve.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand is a known quantity. There is no doubt what she’ll do as President; she’s told us in voluminous detail. She’ll turn the Supreme Court into a body that will decide every case on progressive principle rather than the Constitution. The First and Second Amendments will be legislated from the bench into irrelevance, and a permanent progressive majority on the court will be inevitable. Massive vote fraud, ensuring a permanent progressive majority in Congress and in virtually every office of the land will become reality. Political correctness will run wild, and single payer health non-care will be mandated. Canadians will have nowhere to go to get the health care their single payer system can’t provide.
Hillary Clinton’s spiteful hatred of our military and those that serve in it are legendary. Her embrace of our enemies, and hatred of our allies, is perhaps only a little less than that of Barack Obama. She will destroy the coal industry--another Hillary promise we can bet she’ll keep--greatly increase federal regulations of all kinds, drive gas prices to previously unheard of levels, and complete the wealth redistribution that is global warming policy.
She will throw wide our borders, totally ignoring our immigration laws--she has said she’ll go farther with executive orders than Barack Obama--and will ensure a permanent minority underclass beholden to progressives. Catering to that underclass will fundamentally change America, from our language to our customs to our place in the world.
There is no lie she will not tell, no law she will not break, nothing she will not do to complete the decline of America into a true banana republic, while congressional republicans scramble to see who will rule the rubble.
Clinton’s potential is almost entirely for destruction. It is almost impossible she will do anything good for America. It is almost impossible she will uphold and defend the Constitution.
That’s our choice: a possibility of regaining constitutional government and the rule of law, or a further, precipitous, final descent into socialist oblivion. The money can, and will, run out. The economy can collapse. Our enemies can attack around the world, even in America, and even now, our Marines are scrounging museums and aircraft bone yards to find parts to keep at least some of their jets flying.
We know from Benghazi exactly what Hillary will do with that 3 AM phone call. Trump might actually do something right, something in America’s interests, something that might save American lives. He might even tell the truth about it later.
Trump has potential. He just might protect and defend the Constitution, and with it, America and Americans. At least he doesn’t hate them.
Don Surber: I judge such events by the reactions. Going in Trumpkins worried about Lauer. Afterward, Hillary's Super PAC -- as Cruz called the media -- jumped on Lauer. The next day Hillary held her first press conference in nine months to blunt the forum's impact. The next day after that, she opened her basket of Deplorables.
In the forum, Trump's voice was softer and firmer now. He knows he will be C-in-C in January and relishes the job. He no longer has to prove himself. That's the transformation. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a raw rookie candidate. Those who wrote him off in August, well, like I said, it was August. His focus is on November.
JoshuaPundit: I examined the C-in-C Forum in detail here. As the polls done after the event which I present at the link indicate, three things are clear...Mrs. Clinton was perceived as evasive and untruthful, it was Donald Trump who was seen as decisive, presidential and the clear winner, and our military prefers Trump as commander-in chief by a large majority.
That's impressive considering how much Matt Lauer tried to help her, not to mention the earpiece she was wearing to get coached from backstage. In spite of that, he endured a real gang stomping from the Clinton Media, similar to what happened to Bob Schieffer of CBS after the first 2012 Obama-Romney debate. Aside from an attempt at disinformation, the media frenzy was also intended as a warning to Lester Holt, the next left wing Democrat 'moderator' to do a lot better, or else.
That's also exactly why Obama's former CIA head, lifelong Democrat Mike Morrell was let loose to shill for Mrs. Clinton and attack Trump as 'dangerous for national security.'
Fun fact: Morrell's interview was with Martha Raddatz, who just by coincidence will be 'moderating the second debate.
And that ain't no coincidence.
Trump, not being stupid is now calling for debates without a
Here's another thing I took away form the C-in-C forum. Trump has a far better chance to become president than the polls indicate, that the Democrats are running scared and that the American people just might not have as bad a suicide complex as I feared. They're realizing that we do have a president in waiting, and perhaps even a great one.
The Glittering Eye : I thought the CiC forum was inoffensive and largely uninteresting. I was amused (or maybe dismayed) at how exercised some bloggers and columnists became at Matt Lauer's failure to be partisan enough to suit their tastes. They seem to have forgotten that's the job of the Clinton campaign rather than the news media.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : All in all I liked the Commander in Chief Forum. It was a good way for the candidates to be themselves without having to be on the offensive like they have to be in a face to face debate with their opponent.
Hillary Clinton went first after losing the coin toss and Trump opting to go second.
In answer to the question of what qualities does she have that would make a good commander in chief she replied “steadiness”. Matt Lauer asked about judgment and she said judgment, too. She was asked several times about her emails. She said she knew the importance of classified emails and understands the policies and procedures in place in handling classified and top secret emails. These were all good questions with no good answers from her. She repeated obvious lies after what we know has been revealed through the FBI and through reports arising from information obtained in FOIA requests. One thing did stand out in her answer: She said she communicated classified material on a wholly separate system. Where are those emails and on what system?
In her one attack against Trump she said he lied and that he was for the war in Iraq. She did own up to the fact that she made an error when she voted to get us into the war. She was a Senator and had information very few people had available to them to make this decision. Her attacks against Trump for his early support of the war as a civilian cannot be compared.
There were no questions about Benghazi and Clinton said we did not lose a single American in that action in Libya. Of course we did not lose anyone in “that” action, but our actions in Libya created the climate for the massacre of four Americans in Benghazi.
Finally, Clinton essentially told our enemies they did not have to fear any real action or threat from us as she vowed to never put ground troops in to defeat ISIS. And when questioned about preventing future terrorist attacks on U. S. soil she promised to keep those on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns in her continuing fight for increased gun control.
Matt Lauer was very gracious and helped Clinton by almost coaxing her with key words she used to expand upon in her answers. She was measured and steady and came across very well in my opinion. I try to watch these forums and debates with the eyes and ears of a not wholly informed voter to get a feel for how the candidates are perceived by them.
At the break, right before they came to Trump they played a nasty anti-Trump advertisement. That was pretty low even for NBC.
Matt Lauer asked Trump many more questions than Hillary which he answered with an even temperament. Lauer threw some of his prior outrageous statements back at him to question his judgment. Hopefully Trump understands how his Tweets and off the cuff remarks come across to the general public and how the media will always throw them back at him to make him look bad. In these last two months he needs to stay on message and keep attacking Hillary on her scandals and corruption if he truly wants to win the election.
All in all it was a good introduction to the candidates as we are getting ready to see them face off in the upcoming debates. Now is the time more people are starting to pay attention to the election so hopefully they will see enough to make the right choice in November.
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.
No comments:
Post a Comment