I think his smile here looks unusually genuine. And his banter sounds more on-point than is customary:
Some people are interpreting this exchange as evidence he’s trying to sabotage Kamala Harris and boost Trump. I don’t think so. But I have little doubt he’s angry at Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Harris, and the others who pressured him to withdraw from the 2024 campaign.
The debate moderators last Tuesday left Candy Crowley circa 2012 behind in a cloud of dust in terms of strategic “fact-checking.” Crowley protected Obama in a 2012 debate against Mitt Romney by giving a dramatic and false “fact-check” (I wrote at length about it at the time, in particular in this post and this one).
But the moderators at the Trump/Harris debate “fact-checked” Trump (often incorrectly) again and again and again, while letting Harris skate on lie after lie after lie. No fact-checking for her. It was journalistic malpractice; if you’re going to fact-check in real time at all (which I don’t think should be happening), it must be fair, even-handed, and correct. This wasn’t even close. Then again, “malpractice” only would apply depending on what today’s newspeople consider their guiding principles, and for a long time objectivity has not been among them.
The other day I posted a video of some podcasters analyzing the back-and-forth in the debate in terms of the roles of the moderators and the questions they asked each candidate. In case you missed it, here it is again:
There are also a number of articles that deal with the lies Harris told that the moderators didn’t challenge in any way – and in fact, there was zero fact-checking of Harris during the debate. The lists are long enough that no article deals with them in depth, but here’s an example of such a list.
The problem is that Harris knows she’ll get away with lies because (a) there will be no fact-checking of her in real time (b) the MSM will almost certainly not be fact-checking her properly later unless they are forced to for some especially egregious error; and (c) most listeners will not know she’s lying because she’s often repeating lies told by the MSM for years, and therefore people don’t even recognize she is lying.
One fact-check the media was forced – by the public because of community notes on Twitter – to issue had to do with Harris’ support for paying for transition for illegal immigrants claiming to be trans. Here’s what happened:
Despite all of this being true, here’s how Time covered this moment: “The former President … falsely claimed that Harris “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.”
Now, on top of Time being staffed with lousy, lazy, partisan, left-wing activists who spread misinformation, there’s another reason Time spread this lie… The idea of taxpayer-funded sex change operations for illegal aliens is so outside the mainstream, so wackadoodle, Time likely didn’t even bother to fact-check Trump’s statement. It was simply assumed Trump had invented this because no sane person would ever support something so ridiculously dumb. …
Well, much to Time’s humiliation, the truth will out and the outlet was forced to not only issue a correction …
Something similar happened to the New Yorker on the same subject. How many listeners see the correction? I haven’t a clue, but my guess is that it’s a lot fewer than saw the debate, and the MSM and the Harris contingent count on that.
I also want to call special attention to another “fact-check” during the debate. This one was on violent crime statistics. The use of statistics in politics is both common and tricky. Here is the exchange in question:
But not only did a report from yesterday say that violent crime is up, but the report under discussion during the debate was – just as Trump said – incomplete and missing important data. And then there are police sources reported on here who say that in NY, “migrant crime” is rampant:
Police sources shared with The Post a staggering estimate that as many as 75% of the people they’ve been arresting in Midtown Manhattan in recent months for crimes like assault, robbery and domestic violence are migrants. In parts of Queens, the figure is more than 60%, sources there estimate. …
The problem is made much worse by sanctuary city laws that mean New York cops aren’t allowed to work with ICE on cases in which they believe suspects are in the country illegally. Additionally, the NYPD says it is barred from tracking the immigration status of offenders.
This makes it almost impossible for authorities to get their arms around the problem, experts and sources on the ground say.
Or to compile valid statistics on the subject and report on it accurately.
But the authoritative moderator/”fact-checker” Muir knows nothing of this.
Towards the end of the segment I cued up in that clip, note the way in which Harris counters what Trump says about crime:
I think this is so rich, coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in November at his own criminal sentencing.
Accompanied by a sarcastic, derisive laugh. This particular moment hasn’t been emphasized much in discussions of the debate, even on the right. But to me it is one of the most chilling, maybe even the most chilling. First use twisted and novel versions of the law to blatantly persecute your rival in courts chosen for their bias for your side, and then laugh and mock in triumph at what you’ve done, using that “evidence” to say that your opponent doesn’t care about violent criminals targeting ordinary citizens because he is a criminal himself.
I could say so much more, but this is long enough for today.
Glick was incensed by Harris’ remarks on Israel during the debate:
ADDENDUM: Melanie Phillips writes about the media’s role in amplifying anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment:
The impression given by the British media for the past 11 months of this war has been that Israel is willfully killing huge numbers of Gaza’s women and children, recklessly bombing hospitals and schools full of displaced people, and preventing humanitarian aid from getting to civilians.
Those claims are the reverse of the truth. Yet a very senior military figure seems to have believed them because this media narrative is omnipresent. Even in newspapers whose editorial line is broadly sympathetic to Israel, the reporting is massively distorted by the promulgation of Hamas propaganda as news reports.
Kamala Harris’ remarks on Israel during the debate were in line with that sort of thing.
Are Haitian immigrants killing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio? There no proof of it, and although there’s testimony to that effect from a few residents, it may be a mere rumor. In fact, my guess would be that it’s not true.
But Trump’s accusation has certainly focused attention on a very real problem in Springfield. In fact, I can’t imagine that an enormous influx of immigrants from a very messed-up third-world country (an influx in numbers that equal between a quarter to a third of the previous number of town inhabitants) wouldn’t cause a great deal of strife and conflict in that town or any other town.
This sort of culture clash is probably happening in many places in America, although I think Springfield is a particularly egregious example. People on the left are concerned that the wilder allegations – the dogs and cats thing – will stir up hatred and even violence against asylum seekers such as the Haitians. And it might. But although the dogs and cats allegations may be false (we still don’t know), the plight of the townspeople is very real, and until now it seems it was getting very little attention.
And then there’s Aurora, Colorado:
Beginning last year, a large influx of Venezuelan migrants, some of them members of the notorious Tren de Aragua street gang, reportedly had “taken over” a series of apartment buildings in Aurora—and unleashed terror. Last month, Venezuelan migrants were allegedly implicated in an attempted homicide, an arrest of purported gang members, and shocking security footage that showed heavily armed men forcibly entering one of the apartments. In response to the chaos, police mobilized en masse and vacated one of the complexes after the city, alleging code violations, deemed it uninhabitable.
An obvious question: How did members of Venezuelan gangs suddenly find themselves in suburban Colorado? To answer this, we have conducted an exclusive investigation, which leads to a troubling conclusion: the Biden administration, in partnership with Denver authorities and publicly subsidized NGOs, provided the funding and logistics to place a large number of Venezuelan migrants in Aurora, creating a magnet for crime and gangs. And, worse, some of the nonprofits involved appear to be profiting handsomely from the situation.
How many cities are experiencing this sort of thing? Is that what happened in Springfield, as well? So far, in a quick search, I haven’t found anything answering the question as to why Springfield received such an enormous number of Haitian newcomers. What I do see is articles from the usual MSM sources pooh-poohing the problems and saying it’s all mostly imaginary and racist accusations, and others on the right describing the complains of some of the residents, especially involving a lack of services for the original town residents, as well as increased crime and traffic accidents on the part of the immigrants.
By now, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard that Taylor Swift has endorsed Kamala Harris for president (if you say “who’s Taylor Swift?”, then you probably have been living under a rock). This news underwhelms me, as do all celebrity endorsements. I don’t understand why they would matter to anyone, including fervent Swift fans.
The realm of music – or any art – and the realm of politics don’t really intersect, unless one’s music or art is already of a political nature. Being a good singer or songwriter or painter or sculptor or actor or director or poet doesn’t convey any special knowledge of politics or history or anything else of that sort, and therefore the opinions of such people are no more of interest than the opinions of any random person.
That seems obvious, although I’m well aware that for some people it doesn’t work that way, and celebrities have an influence. But wouldn’t it already be among people inclined to the same point of view? Wouldn’t the majority of Swift’s adult fans be leaning Kamala anyway? And for those who aren’t – for the Trump supporters among them – would any of those people really change their political opinion because of Swift?
I can’t imagine that would be the case. And yet there’s been such a brouhaha about this.
What if the stratospherically popular Beatles had endorsed a candidate when at the height of their fame? Did they ever do anything of the sort? I don’t recall that they did, but maybe I’m forgetting something. They did write some political songs, but not about candidates: “Revolution” and Lennon wrote “Imagine” during his solo career. But an official endorsement of a specific candidate? That seems to be a more modern phenomenon.
McCabe is beating the same old drum:
Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director who Donald Trump fired in 2018, said on a podcast that the former president was a “de Facto Russian asset.”
When Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, the British intelligence service, and co-host of the “One Decision” podcast, asked him if he thought Trump was a Russian asset, McCabe responded, I do, I do.”
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in 2018 on the recommendation of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for making “an unauthorized disclosure to the news media” and testimony that “lacked candor” in the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
McCabe continued, “I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term. But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”
In other words, Trump was not a “Russian asset,” but we can call him that because he “gave us many reasons” to question his policy toward Russia. We disagree with him on policy, so we can smear him as a traitor.
Why do I bring this up? From conversations I’ve had, there are a number of voters for Kamala who detest Trump because (among other things) they are absolutely convinced he’s a Russian asset. This comes not just from things like the Steele dossier, which they may or may not still believe is real, but more importantly from statements of people like McCabe, as well as the idea that gazillions of Russian bots are online in social media trying to elect Trump.
Here’s the official word on the bots:
“Russia is contemplating how U.S. electoral outcomes in 2024 could impact Western support to Ukraine and probably will attempt to affect the elections in ways that best support its interests and goals,” the intelligence community said in its annual assessment of global threats.
“Russia’s influence actors have adapted their efforts to better hide their hand, and may use new technologies, such as generative AI, to improve their capabilities and reach into Western audiences,” according to the assessment, which was presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday.
Russia will continue to employ information warfare to try to divide Western alliances, undermine America’s global reputation and “sow domestic discord, including among voters inside the United States and U.S. partners around the world,” it said.
Remember when the WalkAway movement got going and the Democrats said – falsely – that it was Russian bots? Or, of course, when the Hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation? Good times; good times.
It seems that the Trump-Harris debate really highlighted this already-existing divide. It may even be particularly wide between the media and undecideds. I can’t say I know the characteristics of undecideds at this point, but they exist and they are exceedingly important in a close race (once we put aside the possible fraud factor, which is a wild card).
There are polls in which people say Kamala won the debate but that doesn’t make them vote for her. That’s not so hard to understand, because life in the real world is not a debate, complete with mugging, lies, and moderators who control the questions and the flow. The gist of what I’ve seen is that a great many undecideds were annoyed that Kamala gave out little of substance during the debate concerning her proposals for what she would do as president. They wanted the nuts and bolts, and she didn’t provide it.
Speaking of moderators and control, these guys do a good job of analyzing – in enormous and yet entertaining detail – what happened at the hands of the debate moderators on Tuesday night. When I say “entertaining,” what I mean is that the podcasters all have a good sense of humor, not that the moderator bias itself was the least bit amusing. The video is over an hour, but well worth it (I listened to it speeded up, and you can do that if you like):
I think this clip deserves a post of its own. It’s from one of the Democrats’ debates during the 2020 primary. Quite extraordinary:
MUST WATCH: The last time Kamala ran for President, she told David Muir that she would use executive orders for gun control.
Even Biden was telling her that it wasn't constitutional. She just laughed at him. pic.twitter.com/k2whLMYHzq
— MAZE (@mazemoore) September 11, 2024
First let’s talk about what happened last night.
I didn’t watch the debate, because – as I’ve said many times – I hate presidential debates and they make me very nervous as well. In this case, I expected Trump to do fairly poorly. I’ve watched clips of him in previous presidential debates, as well as watching some of the Republican primary debates during the 2016 campaign, and I’ve never thought he did well in any debate. It’s just not his thing at all.
On the other hand, although many people expected a giggly, airheaded Harris, I did not. As I’ve said before, she’s not stupid, although sometimes she sounds inarticulate and spacey, and she’s usually not direct in her answers. But for last night she was going to prepare within an inch of her life. Plus, she’s a lawyer with some courtroom experience, and almost all lawyers know how to debate, and those who have been courtroom lawyers must know ways to prevent themselves from succumbing to nervousness when needing to perform.
Because of the unusual schedule of this campaign season, there is no plan for the ordinary three presidential debates with the candidate (Biden no longer counts). That means much more was riding on this particular debate – way too much, because it may be the only showdown between Trump and Harris.
But even though I didn’t watch it, I got a sense that things weren’t going well for Trump because about twenty minutes into the debate I got a text from a relative that hinted at it. When I went to other blogs to look at comments there, I saw that most people were saying that Harris was doing rather well and that Trump was being goaded and getting angry; and besides, that the moderators were extremely biased. This seems to be the basic perception on the right, although some say it wasn’t all that bad and Harris didn’t score points on the “likability” factor.
Later I watched a few clips and was surprised that I was more in the “it wasn’t all that bad for Trump” camp. Obviously, what I saw was selected, and perhaps involved his better moments. But not only was he not that bad but Harris was mouthing meaningless and vague platitudes. In the clips I heard, she didn’t sound ditsy but she actually said nothing of any substance and didn’t answer the questions. It was like language as smokescreen.
The whole thing reminds me (not that I needed reminding) of why I detest debates and have detested them almost as far back as I can remember. Maybe the only one I was okay about was the very first I ever saw (and I believe it was the first televised presidential debate), Kennedy/Nixon. Did I really watch it on TV, or have I just seen so many photos and clips that I think I watched it? No matter. I was very young and already was biased towards Kennedy, since I came from a family of Democrats. But even then there was something about the format that seemed forced and phony to me and caused a sense of vague unease.
And come to think of it, I can’t remember the next debate I watched. Maybe a few minutes here and there of Reagan? Same for Clinton? I actually don’t remember watching any debates until 2004. And looking 2004 up just now, I discover that my third blog post, just a couple of days after I began writing this blog, was about a 2004 presidential debate between Kerry and Bush. Here’s the link, and I see from the content that I’m nothing if not consistent. The beginning of the post goes like this:
“When is a debate not a debate?”
When it’s a Presidential debate.
I’ve always hated these things, from the Kennedy/Nixon days. They make me nervous and they perplex me. Debating seems to be a skill that has nothing–absolutely nothing–to do with being an effective president. And of course these debates have nothing in common with actual debates, which are rhetorical contests with certain rules and regulations and have nothing whatsoever to do with action and decisionmaking, and everything to do with argument.
It’s twenty years later and I feel exactly the same.
I ended the post back then with this paragraph:
Bush seemed to be angry, though–not visibly, but underneath, and it made him rush his sentences more than usual, especially in the first half of the debate, and it made him seem confused and forced. And while it seems to me that Bush will be evaluated on his job performance by most people, I think this anger is a wild card in people’s reactions. Those who are annoyed by Kerry will probably wonder that Bush wasn’t even angrier, and will give Bush points for forbearance. But those who find Kerry okay will wonder what got Bush’s goat. As for me, I think I know.
The large question is : why would I (or anyone) care much about how good a presidential candidate is at debating? To me, it’s a very specific and lawyerly skill, but one that doesn’t translate into right action. And it’s decisive action, good judgment, and leadership we want in a president, as well as the ability to negotiate and persuade, using force when necessary and compromise when necessary.
Debates also can turn on things like charm and physical attractiveness, and/or the ability to get in a sound bite or a memorable phrase. And although I like a good turn of phrase as well as anyone (Churchill and Lincoln were masters, for example), there haven’t been many memorable candidates of that sort in a long long time.
But perhaps worst of all is the role of the press. They are given far too much opportunity to put their thumbs on the scale, and they are adept at doing it and more than willing to do it to help the Democrat. Always to help the Democrat. The first time I realized the strength of their ability to do that and their shamelessness about it was in the second debate in 2012 between Romney and Obama, the one in which Candy Crowley was a major player. I wasn’t watching that one, either, but I was listening to it on the radio in real time in a car because I was with someone who wanted to hear it. Later, I went back and studied the transcript and the clips and I was flabbergasted. Not only had Crowley intervened to help Obama and back up what he was saying, but it turns out that he was wrong (or lying) and that she was wrong (or lying).
I wrote several long posts analyzing the whole thing because I was so incensed; you can find the main posts here and here. I came to feel, after closely studying what had happened, that it was even possible that it was a pre-arranged setup between Crowley and Obama.
And Romney was not even Trump, of course – that is, he was not as hated by the MSM. But nevertheless they wanted to make sure he would not become president, and coverage of him was quite vile and of the “binders of women” type. Now the media and the Democrats are far more desperate to stop Trump from getting elected again. As for Trump, he can often be his own enemy. I would say “his own worst enemy,” except Trump has so many extremely passionate and ruthless enemies that the competition is fierce.
Then there is the question of how much presidential debates actually affect people’s voting decisions. Darned if I know. They have never affected mine, but the same isn’t necessarily true for most people. I have little doubt that they don’t change the votes of the committed voters for either candidate, but what of the undecideds? What are they looking for, what matters most to them, and did they find it last night?