Debate Number Three - A Clear Choice

Watching the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the first thing I was struck by was how different things were with a moderator who wasn't part of Team Clinton. Chris Wallace is a Democrat, but he's a journalist first and he went out of his way to keep things balanced and on a professional level. There was only one question he asked Trump that I felt was somewhat out of line, but we'll get to that.

That's a 180 degree change from the partisan presstitutes who ran the other debates, and while he won't get any roses from the Left, he deserves congratulations for a job well done.

His greatest accomplish, I think, is that the country now has a pretty good idea of the directions each would take the country.

They can see the difference between Trump's growing the pie and creating real growth as opposed to Hillary Clinton's eat the rich formula ala' Hugo Chavez.

They can see the difference between business as usual and real change.

They can see the change between hope and continued decline and despair.

Mrs. Clinton's goal was to show Trump as unfit for office, dodge any tough questions thrown at her and stay erect for 90 minutes. She failed the first one, had very mixed results on the second that only worked because she outright lied about a number of things and wasn't challenged. She managed the last one thanks to an unknown Dr. Feelgood.

Trump's goal was to appear presidential, challenge Mrs. Clinton's record and give Americans a sense of who he is and where he would take the country. I'd give him an acceptable score on the first and somewhat higher scores on the second and third.

If this was a boxing match, ten point system, I'd score it 6-4 Trump, maybe 7-3.

I think he would have scored better if he said the following:

Challenged Hillary Clinton on the Heller decision, which had nothing to do with toddlers. Yes, she actually said it was about toddlers having access to guns!

What it was actually about was whether Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home. That’s the whole shebang, and the 110 page transcript doesn't even mention toddlers. So she lied, and it's a pity Trump didn't call her on it. I also wish he'd mentioned that contrary to her supporting the Second Amendment,Wikileaks has revealed she's planning a gun grab by executive order. Her nonsense about 'the gun show loophole' also needed to be shredded on national TV for all to see.

When Hillary started bloviating about a no-fly zone in Syria which in effect would protect jihadis, a great response would have been 'That's exactly what you and Barack Obama did in Libya, use our air force to protect jihadis in Benghazi, depose Khaddaffi, allow his arsenals to fall into the jihadist's hands and create a terrorist Disneyland. Hundreds were killed in Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Nigeria because of you, and now you want to do the same thing in Syria?'

Mrs. Clinton's rant about Trump being 'Putin's puppet' could have been shut down hard by simply saying 'If the Russians, Chinese,Iran or whoever hacked into classified material, it's because of your illegal private server that had no protection whatsoever. When you meet these leaders and they hand you a folder with copies of all the e-mails about your crooked deals you thought you deleted, you'll be the one who's the puppet.'

Indeed she will. This isn't someone we should ever trust with national security. And that $6 billion Trump was talking about? No, it hasn't been 'debunked' and no one knows where the money is, although I have an idea where it went and who wound up with it.

The biggest moment is when Hillary was caught flat-footed by Trump as he named the misogynist Muslim nation who treat women horribly and suggested that she give the millions of dollars they've given her back. Her face was something to see and could have curdled fresh milk.

The one thing the Clinton media is going crazy over (because they have nothing else) is a question Chris Wallace asked Trump. Would he accept the results of the election? Trump's answer was perfectly proper. He simply said "I'll let you know when I see them."

The Democrats are the same people who went bats over their failed attempt to steal Florida in 2000, who went around saying, 'Bush isn't my president' are now crazed by Donald Trump refusing to give up his options? Hillary Clinton herself says that Al Gore 'won' the 2000 election. In fact, Democrats have challenged the results of elections they lost over eight times.

In view of James O'Keefe's revelations on voter fraud, dirty tactics and rigged elections, on what's come out via wikileaks, Trump has every right to say he'll wait and see. You'll notice the media is ignoring that particular story:







Even a casual perusal of wikileaks reveals the corruption of the leadership of the Democrat Party. The Democrats could justifiably be called the party of voter fraud and this election has a lot at stake for the powers that be and the establishment. Trump is totally correct that the system is rigged and that includes our election process. No less than one of Hillary's campaign managers John Podesta was caught by wikileaks saying that as far as he's concerned, illegal migrants are allowed to vote if they have a driver's license, something that's already a reality in California.

There are two ways our elections are rigged. Voter fraud is definitely one way, but that usually only works in relatively close elections. Needless to say, the corrupt Obama Department of Justice aids and abets this.

So if the election's close and Trump and his team discover the kind of voter fraud the Democrats are known for, they have every right to demand an investigation. And if the Establishment doesn't like that, tough. The ability to question election results where fraud is suspected shows the strength of our democracy and the rule of law, and if a Democrat had said this, we wouldn't be hearing word one about it.

Another thing worth mentioning is the media reaction to all this. Most of the media polls show Trump behind (although a number of them, even FOX have been caught using very small samples and oversampling Democrats to a ridiculous degree), and the meme is 'Trump's finished, it's going to be a Hillary landslide, game over.'

Now, according to the Media Trump lost the election weeks ago. Trump lost after the first debate. Trump lost after his tax return was stolen. Trump lost after being fired on by the GOP establishment. Trump lost after that secretly recorded locker room conversation was released. Yes, according to the Media, Trump lost the election a long time ago, right?

So why is the Media acting today like he's winning and just blew the whole thing with this 'shocking remark?' Because for that narrative to have any credibility at all, you'd have to believe they thought he was winning and trashed his chances with one statement they're deliberately misinterpreting.

Could it be that they know their polls are cooked and that selling the execrable Mrs. Clinton is a lot harder than they thought it would be? Could it be that Trump is doing a lot better than they want to admit and they're desperately using the weapon of trying to discourage turnout among Trump's supporters by doing their best to convince them that it's hopeless? If that's the case, then their constant refrain of Trump being finished makes sense.

Meanwhile Donald Trump doesn't seem to think he's finished at all! Does he know something the media isn't reporting? I recommend you invest a half hour and watch this:



He's exactly right that a campaign like Hillary's that will illegally pay thugs to incite violence at opposing political rallies will do anything to win. We'll see how successful they are come November 8th.

Roundup; Debate Reactions The Morning After

The media are doing their very best to spin this,cooking the polls. But anyone who watched the debate knows that Donald Trump won a stunning and unexpected victory.

The nearest thing I can compare this to is Richard Nixon's famous Checkers speech, when he ran as Eisenhower's running mate in 1952. It involved the press, who hated Nixon with a passion, busting Nixon for a so-called 'slush fund' set up by his supporters to cover certain expenses. Lots of politicians then and now have exactly the same setup(today, they're called 'leadership PACs'). Nixon's was fairly modest and innocuous, but because it was Nixon, the press went nuts, Eisenhower pretty much left Nixon twisting in the wind and it was fully expected that Nixon's political life was over and he would be forced off the ticket.

Instead, Nixon went on national TV, leveled with the American people and made his case directly to them. The perception of Richard Nixon - and the polls - changed virtually over night, and all of a sudden there was Ike Eisenhower talking about how proud he was of his running mate and how glad he was to have him.

Don't expect the media polls to reflect this, but things have changed for Trump overnight as well. here are a few snippets and reactions...



This is Joe Scarborough and Mika on MSNBC talking about the debate. Neither are Trump fans,  and I agree with both of them for a change. Scarborough is totally correct about the political impact of someone saying to Hillary's face what people have wanted to say to her for years, and Mika is totally right about the spineless nature of those Republicans who abandoned Trump over a locker room conversation.

Joe Scarborough seems to think no undecided voters were swayed, but below, Frank Luntz's focus group  of undecided voters seems to contradict him:






Rudy Giuliani was predictably happy over last night's debate...




And here, gives us an interesting sidelight on how the Clintons tried to pressure the debate committee...



El Rushbo was actually astonished by how well Trump did...Trump exceeded his expectations.



unsuccessfully, I might add.

As an example of how the media is trying to spin this, here is CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer:



Ah hah hah! Trump never said he'd throw Hillary in jail. What he said is that he'd have his Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her myriad scandals. And it's not just the e-mails and her illegal private server, or her willful and knowing destruction of evidence which had already been subpoenaed, AKA obstruction of justice. There's also the open collusion between the DOJ, the White House, the FBI, and Hillary herself in the matter. And there's also her pay to play while Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation that deserve investigation. Mrs. Clinton's serial corruption is unique in American political life.

I acknowledge that in a way, this may be grandstanding on Trump's part because Obama would undoubtedly give Hillary a presidential pardon if Trump wins. But it needed to be said to underline for the American people exactly who Hillary Clinton is and what her record of 'public service' consists of.

A better term might be 'public servicing.'

Speaking of which, here's a CNN reporter caught on video coaching and steering their focus group:




The redoubtable Spengler sees Trump as winning what he calls the National Battle for Legitimacy:

The referee should have stopped it in the tenth. Punching at will, Donald Trump said, "Hillary used the power of her office to make $250 million. Why not put some money in? You made a lot of it while you were secretary of State? Why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? Just curious." Reeling and against the ropes, Clinton gasped that she supported ... the Second Amendment. It was a brilliant rhetorical device: under the rubric of campaign financing, Trump slipped in an allegation that Clinton corruptly enriched herself by using the power of her office for personal gain--and Clinton didn't even respond. That's a win by a knockout.

That's the decisive issue of the campaign: the corrupt machinations of a ruling elite that considers itself above the law, and the rage of the American people against the oligarchical ruling class that has pulled the ladder up behind it. Trump's bombshell below Clinton's waterline came at the end of the debate, well prepared by jabs at Clinton's erased emails and Bill's rapes. Trump used the "J" word--that is, jail. That was perhaps the evening's most important moment. This is not an election fought over competing policies but a struggle for legitimacy. A very large portion of the electorate (how large a portion we will discover next month) believes that its government is no longer legitimate, and that it has become the instrument of an entrenched rent-seeking oligarchy.

Here's the moment Spengler is talking about. Note the crowd reaction. Trump came up with a perfect encapsulation of Hillary Clinton's corruption in one terse sentence. All but the true believers know she should be wearing an orange jumpsuit right now:



John Hindraker over at Powerline, no Trump fan, saw it this way:

Some of the rats might want to consider returning to the ship. Donald Trump came through pretty well tonight, mainly because the focus was on the issues. As long as issues are being discussed, Trump wins.

The moderators came out of the box with questions about Trump’s 2005 video, which many people expected to be the centerpiece of tonight’s debate. The effort flopped, I thought. Bill and Hillary Clinton took appropriate shots. After ten or fifteen minutes the conversation moved on to the issues.

Thereafter, the moderators tried to help Hillary, and Trump appropriately complained a couple of times. But he got his licks in. As always, he was sometimes incoherent, but more often than not, he made more sense than Hillary, who was in full Nurse Ratched mode.

Happily, immigration figured prominently. Shockingly, in the first debate the moderator never mentioned the topic. Tonight, it was discussed extensively. That is a big plus for Trump. The exchanges on foreign policy were inconclusive, of course, but in general I think Trump did better. And there was even talk about Obamacare, which is great for Trump and Republicans. [...}

In short, Trump won. In my opinion, he won big. We will see whether it matters.

Is this something of a biased roundup? Well, maybe. But no more biased than what's going on at CNN,The WAPO, Memeorandum or Real Clear Politics right now. One thing I did do was to quote people who are admittedly not Trump fans but who seemed to have changed their minds after last night. And annihilate one of today's common talking points by the Clinton media, an outright lie about Trump saying he'd put Hillary in jail if he wins.

Selah.

The Debate - Trump's Triumph

Tonight's debate proved that the obituaries for Donald Trump's campaign were...premature. No matter how the media tries to spin this, Donald Trump won hands down.

He did it by doing exactly what I predicted he was going to have to do:

Here's how Trump wins if he's learned from the first debate. He has to ignore the agenda that has been set up and calmly but clearly attack Mrs. Clinton where's she's vulnerable; on the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation, her enabling of her sexual predator of a husband, and her repeated lies to the American people. He will, if he's smart ignore the 'moderator's' attempts to shush him and have some nice one line zingers of his own to respond to Mrs. Clinton. If he gets questioned about the twelve year old illegally leaked 'sex' conversation, he should respond that he's already addressed that, and compared to the problems facing the country and compared to Mrs. Clinton's history on women and her plan to allow thousands of unvetted Muslims into America, this is a non-issue.
In other words, he has to upset the carefully planned script Mrs. Clinton and the 'moderators' have arranged, go off script and tie things to his own talking points and agenda at every opportunity.

Like I said, the Donald's a quick learner. That's exactly what he did.

The two 'moderators' Anderson Cooper and Martha Radatz are partisan Democrats who did their very best to push Mrs. Clinton over the line. They allowed her to filibuster and go over her time and then refused to let Trump respond, something he pointed out live and on the air. They interrupted him far more than Mrs. Clinton, and more important than the number of interruptions was where they occurred. But their efforts were not as effective as they wanted them to be because Trump simply wouldn't meekly follow their script. His answers always went back to his points he needed to make; Hillary's e-mails, the Iran Deal, her serially corrupt behavior, her  being owned by the special interests, the failure of ObamaCare and her dishonesty.

One of the sweetest moments was when Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of lying about her e-mails and the audience actually laughed at her. And a few moments later, after the Donald said that as president he would consider appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the e-mail scandals and the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton cracked, "Well, it's lucky Donald Trump isn't in charge of law enforcement, "  Trump responded with the best zinger of the night, one that will stick in everyone's head:

"Or you'd be in jail." It got the biggest applause and cheers of the night, and the two 'moderators' had to work hard to shush it.

Donald Trump reminded America of exactly whom Hillary Clinton is, who she's owned by and her disgraceful record in public service. He disposed of the issue of that illegally hacked private conversation quickly and efficiently even though Anderson Cooper  and Martha Radatz did their best to keep that ball in the air.  After saying he apologized twice, he reminded us all that words are one thing and actions, like the serial behavior of  Bill Clinton and his enabler Mrs. Clinton is something quite different...with Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and other  victims or the Clinton sitting right in the front row where they couldn't be missed.



This is actually very much how Trump operates. In the first debate, he avoided going there because Chelsea Clinton was sitting there and he felt it was the wrong thing to do. When the Clinton media illegally obtained and made political capital out of a locker room style conversation Trump had with George W. Bush's nephew Billy 12 years ago, Trump had no compunctions about hitting back, and he did so effectively.

Trump's victory tonight is even more impressive because it was a comeback and as Trump himself said, "It's three against one."

This wasn't how this was supposed to go at all, but the very fact that it focused on issues because of the questions gave Donald Trump an advantage they didn't foresee. And not only did  he rise to the challenge, he did it in a calm, presidential manner.

Even better, this was Hillary's last chance to put Trump away. The last debate will be 'moderated' by FOX's Chris Wallace, who's a Democrat but one who will at least try to ensure a modicum of fairness.

Team Clinton's only weapons left are voter fraud, their pet media and renegade 'conservatives' and Republicans.  After tonight, America has a clear picture of the candidates.

To steal a phrase from Powerline's John Hinderaker, some of the rats might want to consider returning to the ship.

My live blogging notes...

Oct 9, 19:37

What do you respect about each other?


HRC; I respect his children. Granny Cankles! blames Trump for divisive rhetoric. Claims she has tried to 'get away from the personal.' Ri-ight.


Trump: Thanks Hillary for compliment. Respects Hillary as a fighter.

Oct 9, 19:35

Energy:

Trump: mentions EPA ridiculous regs, mentions clean coal and coal miner's jobs.


Wants to bring good blue collar jobs BACK TO AMERICA!


HRC: Claims Trump is using Chinese steel...doesn't mention that US made steel is scarce and more expensive thanks to EPA regs.


'Climate change' of course.

Oct 9, 19:30

Ahh the Supreme Court....

HRC: I want to see judges who ' knows how the real world works.' Wants Citizen's united, voter ID laws repealed. In other words, she wants hard leftists.


Trump: I want to about Judges like Scalia. Judges who will respect the Constitution, 2nd amendment.

Mentions big money going to Clinton from special interests. Mention play for play.

Oct 9, 19:24

Trump mentions Benghazi and the 3AM phone call Hillary ignored.

I can't believe Cooper just ask HRC if she thought Trump would be a disciplined leader! What a tool.

Oct 9. 19:18

To the inner cities.


Trump points out that Hillary and the Dems have done NOTHING. Mentions the 'deploreables' quote when asked in he will be president to all the people.

Hillary doesn't really address the question, just cites the usual treacle. Blames Trump for increase in bullying! Mentions tone and tenor which she blames Trump for, of course.

Trump replies  that Hillary has had a real part in the divisiveness.

Oct 9, 19:16

Raddatz asks Hillary if she would use U.S. forces to save the 'rebels.' Yeah, she would . Doesn't really address Trump's points.


Will they let him respond? Let's see.


Nope, Trump gets shushed. He points out that they let Hillary go a full minute over her time but keep cutting him off. It's obvious...


Oct 9, 19:11 

Syria is the topic now. Hillary just lied about Aleppo. Those 'rebels' she talks about are al Nusrah, an al-Qaeda affiliate.


Trump's response is excellent. He points out who these rebels are and that Russia, Assad, and Iran are killing ISIS. Mentions the Iran deal. Mentions how we now broadcast our strategy, which is stoo-pid. Says he wants tpo get along with Russia to fight ISIS.

Oct 9, 19:05

Trump gets a laugh from the audience when he said 'if you were an effective senator, you would have done something about these abuses you claim you want to fix.'

Hillary gets a long filibuster on her record...Trump is not allowed to respond.

Oct 9, 19:02

Hillary is now talking about how she closed corporate loop holes, spouting the same garbage OBama did about 'exempting anyone make $250K per year.' I guess we saw how that worked out. Basically, she's into 'eat the rich.'

Trump admits he took a loss and used it...and makes the point that Hillary isn't going to do anything about stuff like that because the people taking advantage of the tax code are her donors.


Oct 9, 18:55
Good reply from Trump on how he'd reform the tax code and cut them on the middle class and across the board, and that Clinton will RAISE them. True, that.

Oct 9, 18:54

Hillary Clinton is now lying about herWikileaks quote 'You have to have a public and a private position."

And now she's playing the Russian card, claims Trump is working with the Kremlin.

Trump gets the audience laughing about Hillary comparing herself to Abe Lincoln. Disposes of the Kremlin canard.

"Abe was honest, not like you!"


Good! Mentions Soros and Buffett taking huge tax breaks. Buffet owes over a billion in taxes he hasn't paid.

Oct 9, 18:49

Trump isn't letting the 'moderators' push him around, is insisting on equal time.


Oct 9, 18:47

Ah, here's the Muslim!

Trump handles the 'Islamophobia' vs. security well. Reminds everyone about recent terrorist attacks and that Hill and Obama won't say 'radical Islamic terrorism'

Mentions Kahn, lies that we've had Muslims in America since George Washington, usual platitudes. Will Trump bring up her Muslim Brotherhood ties? Accuses Trump of being a recruiter for ISIS.


Trump brings up IRAQ! Says Kahn would be alive if not for Clinton voting for Iraq war. Mentions Hillary's saying she wants to bring in lots more unvetted Muslims. Pretty good.


Hilary admits that's what she wants, but claims she's going to have 'better vetting'

Oct 9, 18:28

Trump reminds everyone that Hillary started the birther issue.


Oct 9, 18:38 

Hillary's response ignores the cost of ObamaCare. She actually said that Medicare works in spite of the vast fraud.


Good answer by Trump  to Cooper's question about pre-existing conditions. 'ObamaCare was a fraud.'

Oct 9, 18:34 

Those people on ObamaCare would have been on Medicaid anyway. Now, she's lying about what a good thing ObamaCare is. Claims she can 'fix it.'


Trump's response: ObamaCare's a disaster. 'Their way of fixing it is to ask congress for more money.' He explains in detail the right way to do healthcare. Competition, erasure of state lines, tailored plans.


Oct 9, 18:31

They certainly got off the subject of the e-mails quick!
Brings up Wikileaks on Bernie Sanders..brings up deleted e-mails.


Says he will investigate Hillary if elected!!!!! YEAH!


Hillary gets laughed at by audience when she calls Trump a liar about e-mails.


And when she says 'we're lucky Trump isn't in charge of law enforcement'


Trump replies to wild applause -"Or you'd be in jail.


Hillary got a long response...but Trump isn't letting her get away with it. Neither is the audience.

Oct 9, 18:22 by Rob Miller
They're giving more than two minutes to Hillary's response.

Oct 9, 18:21
Good ol' Martha Raddatz...back to the tape.


So Trump's going there...Bill and Hill and their sexual abuse tag team...words and action, there's a difference. Well done, Donald.

(applause, shushed by the moderator)

Hillary amazingly uses 'they go low, you go high.' Applause, not shushed by the moderators of course.

Oct 9, 18:18

Notice how they tried to keep Trump from responding. But he refused to let them sandbag him...good.

Trump wisely points out that Hillary is allowed to bloviate but he's being cut off.


Oct 9, 18:15
Hillary is digging into Trump's suppossed denigration of women. Will Trump hit back?

Oct 9, 18:14
first Follow up by A Cooper..disposed of by Trump mentioning ISIS, etc. And back to his main points of national security and border security.

Ahh, Hillary attacks Trump's fitness to serve

Oct 9, 18:09
Oh good, Trump mentions ObamaCare and Iran deal!

Oct 9, 18:09 
Obama said the same thing...'I want to be everyone's president, unite everybody.'

Oct 9, 18:07
Hillary a model? Lie, cheat and steal???

Oct 9, 18:06 2nd Presidential debate Live Blog
Hillary's drugged out again

What To Expect In Tonight's Debate

(photo courtesy of WikiCommons, Flickr and Gage Skidmore)

Here's what's likely coming in tonight's debate.

This is Mrs. Clinton's last chance to put away Donald Trump, since the last debate will be 'moderated' by Democrat Chris Wallace, who works for Fox and can be expected to at least provide a modicum of fairness.

Tonight's debate will be 'moderated' by Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, both very partisan Democrats. And they will both be striving to avoid winding up like Matt Lauer. Ms. Raddatz, you might remember was the 'moderator' for the 2012 Vice Presidential debate where she leaned heavily on Paul Ryan while allowing Joe Biden to behave like an eight-year-old who'd missed a few days' dose of Ritalin.

It's a town hall type event, which will feature selected undecided voters asking Trump and Hillary questions. It goes without saying that just like the last debate, Mrs. Clinton will have received all the questions in advance, and will know which questions she'll be getting and which one's Trumps getting, so she can have carefully prepared and rehearsed answers to the former and suitable one line zingers to the latter. She will also be wearing her little earpiece again so she can receive backstage reminders and remember her lines.

And she will be jacked up on enough drugs to allow her to last for 90 minutes. She dropped out of site for almost a week after the last one, so she could dry out.

Trump's questioners will likely underline the Democrat talking points, and they won't be undecided at all. Mrs. Clinton's questioners will be partisan Democrats.

Trump's microphone will likely be tampered with again so the audience can't hear him and cheer in response. Any applause he happens toget will be quickly shushed by the 'moderators' while any applause Mrs. Clinton gets will be allowed to continue, just like last time with Lester Holt. Trump will be challenged and interrupted frequently, while Mrs. Clinton will not.

Here's how Trump wins if he's learned from the first debate. He has to ignore the agenda that has been set up and calmly but clearly attack Mrs. Clinton where's she's vulnerable; on the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation, her enabling of her sexual predator of a husband, and her repeated lies to the American people. He will, if he's smart ignore the 'moderator's' attempts to shush him and have some nice one line zingers of his own to respond to Mrs. Clinton. If he gets questioned about the twelve year old illegally leaked 'sex' conversation, he should respond that he's already addressed that, and compared to the problems facing the country and compared to Mrs. Clinton's history on women and her plan to allow thousands of unvetted Muslims into America, this is a non-issue.

In other words, he has to upset the carefully planned script Mrs. Clinton and the 'moderators' have arranged, go off script and tie things to his own talking points and agenda at every opportunity.

If he does that, he's going to win in spite of the odds. As I pointed out earlier, he actually did a lot better in the first debate than the media's cooked polls indicated.

So we'll see.

The Great Debate: Trump Won Rope A Dope Style

 

Ah yes, the debate. It pretty much turned out like I said it would.

I actually live blogged the whole thing (yes, once again I watch this stuff so you don't have too) but this was such a travesty I'll just go over the main points.

The minute Hillary walked out with that manic smile, my comment at 6:06 PM (all times PST) was 'boy, did they shoot her full of drugs.' I'm not kidding in the least. I know a  bit about such things. I'd guess B-12 combined with a Dexedrine cocktail, perhaps with some cortisone shots to keep her knees from buckling for 90 minutes. They'll play hell trying to get her to sleep tonight without the aid of some serious downers like Seconal.

Expect her to be out of action for a few days.

Another thing I noticed (and I wasn't the only one) was how over prepared she was, with each answer spilling on without so much as an um or an err. After the third time this happened, I understood. She'd  gotten the questions in advance from Lester Holt, who composed them, and had then spent serious time rehearsing. It was like watching one of those old 'pull the ring and she talks' dolls.

As for Lester Holt, performed exactly as I said he would. Anyone watching the debates understood instantly that this was Holt and Hillary against the Donald.

Holt had been chest thumping and bragging to his colleagues about how he was going to 'take down Trump.'

His questions were pretty much out of the Clinton playbook worded in leftist prose about 'income inequality' 'climate change' and 'racial justice', with aggressive interrogations by Holt on Trump's tax returns, Trump's 'racist birtherism' Trump's business bankruptcies and other tidbits. I especially liked the one where he framed Clinton's tax plans as 'Mrs. Clinton wants to tax the wealthy, and you want to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually Trump's plan is for an across the board tax cut and he did a decent job explaining it once he was able to get past Holt's constant interruptions and snide comments. Actually, Holt interrupted Trump 58% more  than he interrupted Hillary Clinton.

Funny thing, Lester Holt had no questions about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation or Hillary's e-mail scandal and her illegal private server. Even though one of his questions concerned cyber security, there were no followup questions on that little item! Lester Holt had indeed learned not to go there after what happened to Matt Lauer! The only mention was a comeback by Trump, who said he'd release his taxes when Mrs. Clinton released the 32,000 e-mails she deleted. It got a huge ovation from the audience which Lester Holt shushed as soon as he could. On the other hand,  any applause for Mrs. Clinton was allowed to continue.

The only problem from Hillary's standpoint with Lester Holt's blatant partisan approach is that he overplayed his hand. He was so obvious about the whole thing that he actually helped Trump, who was perceived as the underdog fighting back against as rigged system, which has been one of Trump's campaign  themes. Here was living proof, right in front of everyone. Social media is on fire about this.

Viewer polls from Time Magazine, Drudge and even CNBC showed Trump winning the debate handily and they weren't the only ones. Even Slate showed Trump winning.  Needless to say, as I predicted the legacy media is already trying to spin this as a Clinton win, but it's going to be very difficult:


People might forget what you say, but never how you made them feel. Based on that, Trump won handily. 

Of course, the 'fact checking' will go on. For instance, Trump was also entirely correct when he said murders had increased in 2016 in spite of the in the tank Politifact's efforts to lie about it. Talk about pants on fire!

Follow

Sean Davis ✔ @seanmdav

FBI just released data showing murders increased 10% in 2016. Trump was 100% right. Yet another Politifact fail. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-said-crime-rising-its-not-and-hasnt-b/ …

9:45 AM - 26 Sep 2016

Donald Trump said, 'Crime is rising.' We say Pants on Fire!

After big primaries in California and New Jersey on June 7, Donald Trump -- the presumptive Republican presidential nominee -- painted a picture of a nation in crisis. "Hard to imagine what's...

politifact.com

• 669 669 Retweets
• 478 478 likes

 Expect a lot more of this. But people simply aren't fooled by the Clinton media as easily as they used to be.

Mrs. Clinton also did herself no favors ranting on about the 'incipient racism' in white society and especially among the police. I guess even when a black cop shoots a black man coming at him with a gun after being told repeatedly to drop his weapon, that's white racism too.

Trump also scored because of his obviously superior knowledge of how business and economics works and with a little exchange he had with Lester Holt about Stop and Frisk. When Holt stated incorrectly that it was 'unconstitutional,'  Trump correctly replied that this was a ruling from one judge who was actually removed from the case and  that New York's cop hating Mayor De Blasio had chosen to quash what would have likely been a successful appeal.

Trump did make one error I need to mention and he's not the only one. Barack Obama might brag about ending the Iraq War and people may talk about the vacuum this created  but both  are dead wrong. George W.Bush was the man who signed the disposition of forces agreement with Iraqi leader al-Maliki which called for all U.S. forces to be withdrawn from the Shi'ite dictatorship Bush created there, one of the stupidest things an American president has ever done. It laid the groundwork for Iran to flourish without the checkmate of Saddam Hussein's army right across the Gulf. But Obama can take no credit of blame for pulling our troops out of Iraq.

Of course Obama and Hillary can definitely be charged with having a major role in creating ISIS (which started in Syria as jihadist elements of the Syrian Free Army Obama funded armed and trained, not in Iraq)  and destabilizing the entire Middle East with his illegal war in Libya, but that's a different question.

Again, this wasn't even a semblance of a debate. In a real debate, one of the participants can say the moon is made of green cheese   and it's not the moderator's job to  'fact check' the speaker but but her opponent's to rebut her. Especially when the 'fact checking' is done in advance and aimed at one candidate and one only.

A final takeaway has to do with the overall demeanor of the candidates. As I predicted both Hillary and her minion Lester Holt tried their best to insult, demean and bait trump hoping to make him lose his cool. He refused to rise to the bait and kept things civil, which surprised a lot of people. He looked  presidential compared to Mrs. Clinton's genuinely smug, nasty demeanor. The only time he really let fly a little is when Mrs. Clinton started bragging about her experience and Trump countered by saying something to the effect that it was all bad experience and failure, which again got an ovation Holt did his best to shush.

I honestly don't think Trump realized the extent the media was prepared to go to to try and take him down. They failed, but the Donald is a quick learner. And yes, Trump made a decision to avoid landing what could have been knockout blows in favor of appearing more likeable and presidential. For instance, when Hillary and Lester Holt were painting him as a sexist, it would have been no trouble at all for him to start referring to Hillary's sexual predator of a husband and Hillary's enabling of it. But as Trump tells it, he saw Chelsea in the audience and decided to let it pass because he felt it wasn't the right thing to do. Like Hillary's corruption and weakness on cyber security, most people already know this anyway, so I think that was a smart decision on his part first time out.

Trump fooled me too on this one. At times, I was like Bundini or Angelo Dundee, yelling 'Champ! Get off the ropes! Don't let them pound you like that, mention the  Clinton Foundation!'

But like Mohammed Ali, The Donald chose to hold some of his fire and let Crooked Hillary and her media shill beat themselves, rope a dope style. Smart move, and expect him to be even more impressive next time out.

Trump Vs. Clinton: What To Expect At Tonight's Debate

 
(photo courtesy of WikiCommons, Flickr and Gage Skidmore)


It's definitely on tonight, and while we can't predict exactly how it will go, here are some things I'm pretty sure you can take for granted:

You'll frequently be under the impression Trump is debating 'moderator' Lester Holt rather than Mrs. Clinton.

Matt Lauer was the moderator of the Commander in Chief forum and Lester Holt had to have noticed the gang stomping Matt Lauer got from his peers as well as his employer simply for asking Mrs. Clinton a few questions about her e-mail scandal. It didn't matter that this was something obviously relevant in a forum on national security. Not only did he make her look bad, but he actually had a semblance of fairness when questioning Donald Trump.

And. We. Can't. Have. That.

Rest assured that Lester Holt isn't going to make the same mistake Matt Lauer did. He will be aggressive and partisan towards Trump and give Mrs. Clinton softballs if he knows what's good for him. In fact, Lester Holt is already chest thumping and bragging to his colleagues that he's going to do just that.

No matter how this comes out, Hillary Clinton will be extolled as the Winner by the media afterwards.

Donald Trump, you see, will actually be going three on one here against Mrs. Clinton, the media and the moderator. Unless it's a major blowout, they will call it for Clinton and manipulate the polls to do their best to 'prove' she won.

Expect a fair amount of attempts to insult Trump and get him to lose his cool. 'Nuff said.


Expect the debate rules to be broken if it favors Mrs. Clinton regardless of the rules. If she has one of her infamous coughing fits, expect Lester Holt to go to a station break or commercial, Expect him to allow her to filibuster and not answer questions whenever its remotely possible without being challenged. Expect her to be allowed to try to talk over Trump without being restrained by the 'moderator.'

And expect the exact opposite treatment for Donald Trump.

And unless there's a major gotcha moment, expect this debate to have little impact on the election.

I could be wrong about that last one, but we'll see.

NBC's C-inC Forum Sets the Tone For The Debates. And Yes, Hillary Lied Again

 

The reaction to last night's 'commander in chief' forum on NBC was absolutely surreal.

Matt Lauer actually had the temerity, just for a few minutes, to question Hillary Clinton like an actual journalist and to actually allow a questioner to be critical of her. And he's in a world of sh*t because of it. Look at these headlines:

CNN "Behind the scenes, NBC execs concede Matt Lauer forum performance was "disaster"

New York Times "Matt Lauer Loses the War in a Battle Between the Candidates"

Jonathon Chait,New York Magazine "Matt Lauer’s Pathetic Interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is the Scariest Thing I’ve Seen in This Campaign"

There's tons more, but you get the drift.

He should have known better, really. Remember how the press crucified Bob Schieffer for being even handed during that first Obama-Romney debate in 2012? Schieffer,of course was indeed a fairly Left leaning Democrat, but he came from an older generation where there were still some journalistic ethics and standards.

The infamous Candy Crowley, who 'moderated' the second 2012 debate learned from Schieffer's faux pas and did everything she could short of pepper spraying Romney to make sure Obama came out looking good. Rest assured that ABC's Lester Holt, who's 'moderating' the first debate has taken note of Lauer's gang stomping and will behave the same way Crowley did.The presidential debates will be custom designed to attack Trump and destroy him at all costs, and to let Mrs. Clinton to slither into the Oval Office.

Actually, Matt Lauer was relatively easy on Hillary. Yes, he actually asked a few questions that stung a little, but he let her get away with blatant falsehoods.

For instance,Hillary made a big point last night that the stuff she was spreading around to unauthorized people via her illegal private server 'wasn't labeled classified.' (This after just a few days before she told the eFBI she didn't remember her briefing on how to handle classified material!)

Now, I didn't expect a Clintonista like Matt Lauer to challenge her on anything, but the FBI report showed that there were numerous e-mails from Mrs. Clinton to Cheryl Mills and Huma referring to removing 'classified tags' from e-mails she planned to share with unauthorized people and asking if they had done it yet!

And here's another point Lauer should of brought up but of course, didn't. If you're a high government official getting classified briefings and you share that information via a regular ol' email with an unauthorized person in exchange for a donation to a scam 'foundation', a six figure speaking fee for your disreputable spouse or a nice campaign contribution or other quid pro quo, you are trafficking in classified information.

Which of course, is exactly what Mrs. Clinton did. She's simply a corrupt felon who got away with it because the Obama DOJ let the FBI know that they weren't going to prosecute. FBI Director Comey's sickening nonsense about 'intent' was sheer bolshoi.

The illegal server itself shows intent. And when someone wipes an illegal server using software like Bleachbit AFTER the story breaks and when this same evidence has been subpoenaed, that shows intent too...for anyone but the Clintons.

Matt Lauer, of course, knew better than to 'fact check' Mrs. Clinton. But he made an even bigger error when he let someone with an actual hard ball question slip through, a vet with years of experience handling classified intel that told her that if he had done what she did, he would have been prosecuted and jailed. Her response was, well, not really a response at all.

He was the only one who questioned Mrs. Clinton on the subject or who even did more than toss her a softball. And if you watch, you'll see her glare briefly at Lauer and then look at the vet, write his name down after the question and hand it to one of her Secret service guards.

Then there's the matter of Mrs. Clinton's flesh colored earpiece, something Matt Lauer apparently didn't notice...or maybe chose not to:



NYPD officers involved with the NBC forum’s security detail recognized it instantly. They confirmed that Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,” used by actors in Broadway shows so they can be prompted on their lines and receive cues off-stage from directors. They're wireless, not like the ones used by the police, the FBI and the Secret Service.

Mrs. Clinton has apparently been using this for quite some time as WikiLeaks confirmed with this email to Mrs. Clinton from Huma Abedin, her close personal aide:



As actor James Wood tweeted, 'She can't even #lie without help from a gaggle of other #liars through an earpiece' @HillaryClinton #HillarysEarpiece pic.twitter.com/YIMVd72SjH

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 8, 2016

Actually, what probably happened is that except for the one questioner who slipped through, the rest were rehearsed beforehand and Mrs. Clinton just needed prompting on her scripted answers.The media won't raise that question, but Trump should at the next debate. Either she's deaf, or she's being coached from off stage, and I think we all know which it is.

And Donald Trump? Lauer was actually tougher on him than he was on Mrs. Clinton. He got almost twice the amount of questions she did, and none of them were softballs. Lauer made a valiant try and getting Trump to slip up but failed utterly. trump refused to rise to the bait, and simply repeated what he's said all along, that he will defeat ISIS but that he's not giving away his ideas on strategy on live TV, but will consult with his military advisers and come up with the best ideas, whether there his, someone else's or a combination of the two. Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton, who informed ISIS, Iran and a whole lot of other bad actors on national television that we would newer send troops to Iraq under any circumstances.

I guess she learned from her old boss, President Barack Hussein Obama who informed the Taliban as well as any Afghans trying to decide whom to side with exactly when we were leaving. And they say Donald Trump doesn't know anything about foreign policy?

Two other things Donald Trump said that bear mention. He openly criticized some of the generals President Obama has kept in place who will go along with his farcical agenda and rules of engagement that have cost American lives...As opposed to some of our best and most successful field commanders that have been forced into retirement. And that purge includes not just generals and admirals but even extends down to junior officers, as my regular readers know. Barack Obama has played politics with our military in order to 'transform it' just as he has everything else.

And when challenged about Vladimir Putin, Trump said he thinks he can get along with Russia on a great many issues of mutual concern while keeping our national interests in mind. That's something Mrs. Clinton and her boss failed miserably at with the so-called 'reset.'

Fact - Putin is one of the few world leaders fighting jihad right now, and we will need Russia's help to defeat it,just as they will need ours. When Trump said 'imagine how great it would be if the U.S. and Russia cooperated in defeating ISIS' he was entirely correct.

I'll leave you to decide who sounded like a real commander-in-chief. The military has already spoken, and by a huge margin.

So have the people who watched it.

Debate 'Moderators' Announced - All Democrats And MSM Talking Heads

The supposedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the moderators for the upcoming presidential and vice-presidential debates and they all have three things in common...they're all Democrats, they're all talking heads for the mainstream media and with one possible exception, they're all rooting for Hillary Clinton.

First presidential debate: Lester Holt, Anchor, NBC Nightly News



Democrat, grew up in Marin County north of San Francisco, (arguably the most far left county in America), lives in Manhattan.

Vice-presidential debate: Elaine Quijano, Anchor, CBSN and Correspondent, CBS News



Democrat,used to work for CNN, grew up in Chicago, lives in New York.

Second presidential debate: Martha Raddatz, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and Co-Anchor of "This Week," ABC

Democrat. Lives in Arlington, VA. Used to be married to uber-liberal Ben Bradlee and was so ineffectual at 'moderating' the 2012 debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden that even Saturday Night Live parodied it.

and
Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN



Democrat. Born in New York City and still lives there. Perhaps the most openly anti-Trump on and off the air than anyone else on this list. Fun fact: Even though he's openly gay, he habitually refers to the book that calls for him and others with his lifestyle to be murdered as 'the Holy Qu'ran' and rabidly supports a presidential candidate who promises she will bring thousands of people into America from countries where murdering gays is perfectly acceptable because Allah said so. Go figure!

Third Presidential Debate: Chris Wallace, Anchor, Fox News Sunday



Democrat. Son of über lefty CBS newsman Mike Wallace and stepson of former President of Bill Leonard, a longtime Democrat fundraiser who Wallace has referred to as 'the most influential man in my life.' Worked for NBC and ABC. Has kept mum about whom he supports, but has been noticeably aggressive towards Trump.

Sounds like a totally balanced and non-partisan crew to me! I'm surprised Candy Crowley didn't make the cut this year.

And just to add to the fun, the CPD also announced that Steve Scully, Senior Executive Producer, White House and Political Editor for C-SPAN Networks, will serve as backup moderator for all the debates. He's reportedly noted for his even handedness and I hoipe it's true. But he also learned his trade by interning for Sen. Joe Biden and serving as a staff assistant in Sen. Ted Kennedy’s media affairs office.
Since neither of these intensely partisan pols would ever hire a Republican, we can assume that Sculley is a Democrat as well.

I'm not certain whether Trump has a veto on this, but I can think of any number of media figures capable of moderating the debates in a fair and impartial manner, or whom would at least make the moderator gig more balanced. Especially since most of the 'moderators' named here are almost certain to jump in and do their bit to push Mrs. Clinton over the line.

Actually, if I were Trump I'd insist on Lincoln-Douglas style debates. The candidates each speak in turn and respond to each other...no 'moderators,' just a timekeeper. Now that would really show us something about the candidates.

CNBC's GOP 'Debate' - Ted Cruz Shows The Emperor Has No Clothes

I have to admit, I have never seen a spectacle like this before. Just when I think the Leftist media has struck bottom, they dig a new hole even deeper. CNBC's 'moderators' made no secret of their political bias or their disgust and hatred of every candidate on the stage tonight. The questions they asked them were designed either to get the candidates to attack one another or of the 'have you stopped beating your wife' category.

Senator Ted Cruz fianlly had enough after he was insulted by being called 'not the problem solver America's voters need' in yet another 'question.' He got the biggest wave of applause all night when he called out Pravda-on- the-Hudson's John Harwood and CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla on the bizarre, hostile questions and compared them to how Democrats were treated at their debate:

"The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media."

"This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions -- Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?"

"The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise?"

"Let me be clear," Cruz said. "The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks."

"Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary"

I wouldn't even call it Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks myself...more like bunch of carnies seeing whom could game the rubes the most by promising 'free' stuff.And would anyone be surprised to find that certain questions asked in the democrat debate were run by one or more candidates in advance?

"The questions being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home," Cruz finished before getting cut off.

It was a superb moment, both for Ted Cruz and for the American people. Right before the eyes of the entire country on nationwide television, he just revealed that the emperor really has no clothes. And that a big part of our dysfunctional politics is due to creatures like CNBC's Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood.

Still, unfortunately, there's the stupid party (as opposed to the corrupt one) to deal with.

 

While Reince Priebus, head of the RNC tweeted harsh criticism of CNBC's antics. But he still has no excuse for allowing Republican candidates to appear in a biased forum like this. And if he didn't know it was going to be this bad, he should have.

Marco Rubio came out with an excellent jab, saying 'The Democrats have their own super PAC. It's called the mainstream media.'

That's really what we're dealing with here. The efforts of some of these people aren't journalism. They amount to a campaign contribution in kind, and the GOP candidates need to simply say no to any further exercises like this.

There's absolutely no need for these unethical, egotistical 'moderators.' Make the debates Lincoln Douglas style, where each party speaks for a set time and the only outside party is a timekeeper.

You can't continue to kiss the feet of people who kick you.

The Opening Salvo - Last Night's Debates

What can we take away from the FOX news GOP debates last night?

The first and most important thing is that it gives the lie to President Obama's current approval numbers, which I've always questioned. Over 24 million people watched the debate last night, an audience that shattered all previous records for a non-sports event.

These people are hungry for change,literally starved for it. They may not say so to a pollster, out of fear of the regime targeting them, which they've seen happen all too much. Or of being labeled 'rscist'. But they're not deaf dumb and blind to how the country is being destroyed.They were watching to see who among these men could be relied on to save it.

And there's also immense anger at the betrayal of the Republican establishment, whom did nothing they promised during the 2014 campaign. That is what explains Donald Trump's high poll numbers, and last night's huge audience.

I disagree with much of the criticism being tossed at the FOX moderators last night. First, handling that many people is extraordinarily difficult anyway, but I thought FOX managed it fairly well. And I liked the way they kept things moving. I also disagree that the questions were overly barbed or biased, although there were a couple I think the event could have done without.

This is the big leagues, and the Republican candidates had better get used to this sort of scrutiny, the kind Democrats never face. If you think last night was bad, wait until you see how Candy Crowley and CNN treat the GOP lineup. And don't ask me why the GOP agreed to Candy Crowley as a moderator after what she pulled in 2012. You wouldn't like my answer.

The candidates? In the lower tier, Carly Fiorina did very well, and may have launched herself into top tier. She went after Hillary Clinton with both fists and was extraordinarily on point. Unfortunately, I researched Ms. Fiorina thoroughly when she ran for senate in California, I'm very aware of her record. I'll be sharing that with you in a separate piece.

In the top 10 tier?

Donald Trump was initially the focus of attention, but that shifted very quickly. The overall impression on anyone with an open mind is that with a few exceptions, this is a highly qualified group of people.

I thought Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee did extremely well. For many people it's the first time they've seen either man in action, and both were articulate and intelligent. I would also say that for those people thrilled by Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric, both of these men came across as choices with actual records of long standing opposing the status quo and that GOP establishment. And both candidates are going to have an appeal to people of faith...of all colors and backgrounds.

Donald Trump trotted out the expected applause lines, but was hit hard on his donations to the Clinton Foundation, his past support for abortion on demand and his sudden conversion to being a Republican after being a life long Democrat. His answers to these questions struck me as pat and rehearsed. The real kicker, of course was when he was asked if he would commit to not running as a third party candidate and he refused.

His performance last night will reinforces suspicion in many quarters that he may very well be running as a faux candidate to split conservative votes and deliver the election to Hillary Clinton, with whom he's on very good terms. It is not out of the realm of possibility in the least. Especially when we're talking about the Clintons.

Personally speaking, I've already been here before with Ross Perot, who delivered the White House to Bill Clinton in 1992. Yes, dear readers, I fell for Perot's song and dance and voted for him, and it's the one vote I ever cast I wish I could take back.At least Perot had the honesty to run as an honest third party candidate from the jump. Donald Trump apparently lacks that honesty, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the story for me unless he changes his mind. For those of you enamored of Trump's anti-GOP establishment rhetoric, there are other candidates running more worthy of support if you're being intellectually honest.

Rand Paul and Scott Walker had some really excellent moments, and Walker in particular was able to show off his outstanding record as Wisconsin's governor. He's also noticeably more comfortable at the podium, and in discussing foreign policy. Rand Paul thrilled the entire crowd when, in response to a question on same sex marriage he responded "I don't want the government registering my guns or my marriage." He also deserves credit for pinning down Donald Trump on his refusal to commit to not running as a third party candidate.

Ben Carson was a pleasant surprise, showing off a sense of humor that went over very well, and a knowledge of security and foreign policy matters that showed he's been studying up.

Marco Rubio did well also, although his performance was fairly rehearsed. If you like Marco Rubio, you were pleased with his showing. If you don't, and especially if you still don't trust him on illegal migration, it didn't change your mind.

Jeb Bush had a coupe of stumbles, but again did OK if you like Jeb Bush. After all, he was a very good governor for Florida and accomplished quite a bit. The illegal migration issue will either lose him or get him the nomination. His attempt to differentiate 'legal status' from citizenship struck me andpropbably a lot of other people as desperation.

Christy-Creme is finished. I can't imagine why anyone takes him seriously.He's been a lousy governor of New Jersey with a poor fiscal record, and is simply the last quivering corpse of the endangered East Coast RINO species. And I can't imagine why John Kasich was first tier. He had his moments, but it's hard to imagine him as president.

What was most interesting to me was the high quality in general of the candidates. With th possible exception of Cristy-Creme and perhaps Mr. Trump, these are serious and qualified people...some more than others in my view, to be sure.

Reince Priebus, The RNC And The Rage Of Sheep

 

Breitbart has the story about some letters Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee sent to NBC and CNN about their recently announced decisions to produce bio-pic films celebrating the life of Hillary Clinton:

The RNC sees the odd programing move as an in-kind contribution to Clinton's presumed campaign for President in 2016. As a result, the party will formally bar Republicans from partnering with the networks on any primary or Presidential debates in 2016.

Priebus wrote to CNN:

I find CNN’s actions disturbing and disappointing. Your credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign.

And to NBC:

I find this disturbing and disappointing. NBC cannot purport to be a neutral party in American politics, and the credibility of NBC News, already damaged by the partisanship of MSNBC, will be further undermined by the actions of NBC Universal executives who have taken it upon themselves to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign.

Wooo..gutsy!!

Not.

The implication here is that if CNN and NBC decide to can the planned full-length Hillary infomercials, the Republican candidates will show up like the docile sheep they always are and participate in forums where the 'moderator' is not only rooting for the other team but has an active record of assisting them when it counts.

Why bother? Why participate in an exercise where the goal is to picture whomever the GOP picks as its nominee in a bad light on national TV and provide ammunition to get whomever the Democrats pick elected? This garbage not only goes on in presidential debates but in debates between prospective GOP candidates. Remember this one?

The only actual debate that was truly moderated in a proper way during the last election was the first presidential debate by Bob Scheifer of CBS, an obvious Obama fan and Democrat sympathizer who was still just professional enough to keep his personal views out of it and let the two candidates go at it. And he caught hell from the Left for doing it.

Here's what a really gutsy and effective stance would look like.Imagine what would happen if Priebus were to say that because of obvious bias exhibited in the last election cycle, Republican candidates would no longer participate in any debates 'moderated' by talking heads from ABC, CNN or NBC?

Instead of that, imagine the effect of insisting on Lincoln-Douglas style presidential debates. Two candidates go at it head to head with no moderator, just a timekeeper.

Now that would be a debate worth seeing..no biased moderators, no sifted 'questions' supposedly from the audience, just a battle of ideas.

Oh, I can hear the ceremonial whine of the RINOs even now...'but they won't like us! They'll hate us!'

Guess what...they already feel that way.

What To Expect In Tonight's Debate

First of all, expect Bob Schieffer to 'moderate' even more in Obama's direction than Candy Crowley did.The above clip should give you a pretty good idea what we're dealing with, and Michelle Malkin has a few more example of how biased and partisan this shill is.

Mitt Romney will end up with all the tough followups and will be interrupted frequently whenever he starts to make traction. Expect President Obama to end up with significantly more speaking time.

However, Romney may very well make a couple of good hits on Obama's foreign policy record. There's certainly plenty of targets.

Bob Schieffer will try to lure Romney into a soundbite that the Obama media can magnify into a gaffe or talking point. Do not be surprised if the president is fairly smooth tonight, as the questions will likely have been leaked to the White House in advance to allow him to rehearse some answers. Expect a lot of variations on 'I got bin-Laden'.

With all that, barring a major gaffe by either candidate, I'd be surprised if this particular debate had much impact. Barack Obama needs a knockout, to mak e Mitt Romney appear unpresidential and I doubt he's going to get it.

Americans are primarily concerned about the economy, the president's abysmal mismanagement of it is pretty well known, and in the end that's what the election will come down to..that, and turnout.

'Undecided' Voter Who Asked AK-47 Question At Debate - Registered Dem, Obama Campaign Worker

Goodness, I wonder how that happened?

I'll tell you how..it's because the GOP continues to lay down and allow left leaning talking heads from the dinosaur media to moderate and control the debate action.

If I were running, I'd insist on Lincoln-Douglas style..a neutral timekeeper with a gavel and no moderator at all.

The Spin Versus The Truth About Obama's Debate Statements on Libya

The spin continues about President Obama's statements on Libya during Tuesday's debate, and moderator Candy Crowley's jumping in to back him up. Candy Crowley has belatedly backed off her admission right after the debate  that Governor Romney was 'mostly right' and CNN is circling the wagons to head off criticism of her conduct as moderator.

It's time to end this farce.

According to the debate transcript, here's exactly what President Obama said:

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden
and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

Note Obama referred specifically to his Rose Garden statement, which occurred 9/12/12. Here it is, word for word, exactly as given on the official  White House site:

" I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."

There's absolutely nothing in the president's Rose Garden statement about referring to the Benghazi assault as 'an act of terror' or 'hunting down' the perpetrators, even though as I showed in an earlier piece, the State Department knew very well within 24 hours that what occurred was a terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda and affiliated militias.

The generic referral to 'acts of terror' (which did not specifically refer to Benghazi as a terrorist attack) came 9/13/12, in Colorado at a campaign event. Meanwhile, the president, the Secretary of State, Jay Carney, Ambassador Susan Rice and others kept pushing the 'it's the video' nonsense. President Obama even perpetuated that during his appearance on 'The View'.They kept that up for over a week. Remember these gems?:




In fact, there was no admission by the White House that Benghazi was a terrorist attack until 9/19/12, when Obama Administration official Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, finally admitted it at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

So yes, the president lied, both in fact and by intent given the overwhelming message we heard from him and him administration until September 19th. And Candy Crowley, who was supposed to be a neutral moderator backed him up.

I think the majority of the voters know that what Obama and Crowley put out there is sheer fiction. They saw and heard what the Administration was saying to try to spin this for 8 days to cover up an outrageous security and intelligence failure for partisan political purposes.That's going to come up in the next debate, and President Obama is going to wish he hadn't made such a point out of this.No matter what kind of assistance CBS's Bob Schiefer gives him, this president can't run form his record.

As for Candy Crowley, her behavior was inexcusable.She was supposed to be a neutral moderator. She wasn't there to 'fact check' anyone, to chime in on anything she considered a misstatement, or to bail the president out of jams on topics like Fast and Furious or Libya.She failed utterly in what was supposed to be a moderator's main responsibility, to make sure each candidate got equal time. The president ended up with over four minutes more than Governor Romney, a difference of 9%.

I'm certainly not surprised she's attempting to walk back her admission after the debate that Romney was 'mostly right', or that CNN is now pushing its employees to circle the wagons around her.On his show Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh said that in the journalistic environment he came up in, Candy Crowley's career would have been over.H

Just a note to those of my readers on the left who think this behavior was perfectly acceptable. In fairness, we both know that if a moderator had exhibited this kind of blatant bias in the other direction, you'd be screaming bloody murder.You'd be right to do so.

When this kind of journalistic misconduct becomes the accepted norm, the loser is our democracy. Think about it.

It's Not Paranoia If..

(H/t Hugh Hewitt)

Obama Won On Points? That's Not What The Polls Say

I find the polls on last nights debate interesting.

CBS says its polls gave the win to Obama, among registered voters 37-30. And CNN's registered voters gave it to Obama 46-39. Not likely voters, but registered voters, only 2/3 of whom bothered to vote last time out.

And then you get into these polls' internals.In CNN's case, they won't even reveal the numbers, but say:

According to the survey, Obama had a 47%-41% edge on which candidate was more likeable. But on some key issues, Romney came out on top, including an 18-point lead on the economy, 54-40.

"Mitt Romney was seen as better able to handle the economy, taxes, and the budget deficit among the debate audience, but it seems that issues were trumped, or at least blunted, by intangibles, including the expectations game," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Romney also won out in CNN's poll on who appeared to be the stronger leader(49%-46%) and over 60% saying President Obama didn't offer a clear plan for solving the country's problems.

The CBS poll, which also showed Obama 'winning' was even more revealing. It showed Romney ahead 65-34 on the economy, 51-44 on taxes,and 59-36 on the deficit.

Translation? When it comes to what I'll call the Jerry Springer factor, people were willing to give President Obama some ground, especially since expectations were what they were. But on the actual issues that are going to determine the election, the pocketbook issues, Romney won big.

The latest Gallup? Mitt Romney 51%, Barack Obama 45%.

Round Two - Decision, Romney

Well , the second debate is history. If I were scoring this round as a prize fight, I'd call it 10-7 Romney, even though President Obama was a bit more animated this time.

While each side is going to claim victory, in fact this was a classic example of ObamaFail. To check Romney's momentum, the president needed to take out Mitt Romney, and he simply failed to do so, even with moderator Candy Crowley's active assistance and a number of questions that were very likely plants.

On the other hand, what Mitt Romney needed to do was build on his knockout performance last time out, score some decent shots on Obama and appear confident,poised and presidential. He succeeded.

Candy Crowley was slightly better than Marsha Raddatz, but only slightly, which is to say that her bias was readily apparent. That's apparently the new normal for 'moderators' now. She actually bailed the president out of two important issues he obviously didn't want to discuss much, Libya and Fast and Furious. She allowed the president to get away with not answering at least two questions directly without challenging him (why he didn't push immigration reform during his first two years when he had a Democrat majority in congress, and what he wanted voters to know about him that was different than how he'd been portrayed).

Even worse, she aided and abetted the president in an outright lie.

President Obama said that he appeared in the Rose Garden the day after the attack and called the killing a terror attack. When Romney argued that it was not true, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in pipe up than yes, the president did say that.

Except he didn't.

Within seconds, ABC Reporter Jake Tapper tweeted a link to the actual transcript of President Obama's remarks and nowhere did he refer to what happened in Benghazi in that fashion.

He referred to it as 'an outrageous attack' and 'senseless violence' along with the expected remarks about how ' the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others', a reference to the original nonsense about how this was all about some video, but nothing there about a terrorist attack.

To quote a pungent old Yiddish saying, 'Ein liegt an die andere schwören' or 'One lies and the other swears to it.'

Even Mike Allen from the left leaning Politico caught this one.

Candy Crowley herself admitted that Governor Romney was 'mostly right' - after the debate,

The good part, of course, is that this little bit of bias by Crowley is going to lead to a lot more discussion about Libya...not something I imagine the president wanted.

Crowley also did her best to allow the president to go overtime while cutting Romney off. The president ended up with over 4 minutes more speaking time than Mitt Romney, a difference of 9%.

President Obama's actual performance was more animated than last time (I doubt it could be less) but he was laboring, like an actor trying to remember a script he hadn't memorized. I expected a few new tricks after all that expensive debate prep in a five star resort at the taxpayer's expense. It didn't happen.

President Obama stuck to the same tired talking points - class warfare, blame Bush. eat 'the rich'. In short, hey, better the devil you know this scary Mormon Republican guy! He also finally threw the 47% line in at the end of his closing statement, when Romney was unable to respond.

Among his more spectacular gaffes was insisting that gas prices were so much lower when he took office as opposed to today because we were in a recession back then! What does he call today, good times?

Another was this gem, in response to one of the questions that was likely planted, one on gun control: "Weapons designed for soldiers in war do not belong on our streets."

Obviously, they belong on Mexico's streets according to this president, but when Romney segued nicely into a mention of Fast and Furious, Crowley cut him off.

Romney kept punching at Obama's failed record on the economy, and the president frankly didn't have much of a defense besides the class warfare drum and a few obvious falsehoods. Particularly poignant was Romney's response to a young college student who was worried about whether he was actually going to have a job when he graduated. The president responded with the usual platitudes. Romney explained to him how growing the economy was going to result in a better future for everyone and ended by asking him when he was going to graduate. When the young man responded 2014, Mitt Romney looked at him, smiled and said 'when I'm president, you come see me and I'll see you have a job.'

And you know what? I bet he would.And even more, I think the young student, who maintained eye contact with Romney for an instant believes it too.

Romney also scored heavily on energy, on the Keystone pipeline, on trade, and on his understanding of how to build an economy and how government can facilitate job growth. And his close was particularly good:

In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they’d like to do. In the course of that, I think the president’s campaign has tried to characterize me as — as someone who’s very different than who I am.

I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help with the experience I have, the American people.

My — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get 100 percent of my people insured, all my kids, about 98 percent of the adults. I was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation, so 100 percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future.

I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.

If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will. I’ll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming generations. The president said he would. He didn’t.


President Obama's essential problem was that he tried, and he had help, but he didn't really lay a glove on Mitt Romney tonight. The left will love it that he was more aggressive, petulant and animated, and they'll write it up as a draw or even an Obama win.

It will be to those who are convinced and motivated Obama voters. But to the undecideds, independents and people with soft support for this president, it was anything but that.