Blog Archives

Not surprisingly, Clinton wins debate

9/27/2016

We are a who won, who lost society so let's get that out of the way: Last night’s debate was not a game-changer but was a momentum stopper. Hillary Clinton won, clearly, but the momentum had been with Donald Trump in the days before the debate. She stopped that leaking and maybe will pick up a point or two in the polls. Neither candidate lost any supporters last night – their “bases” will never shift to the other, but last night should have moved some of the undecideds to her column, for now.

In about two weeks, this debate won’t matter except for that short-term ceasing of the leaking of her polling lead, not an unimportant development.

Why? Maybe because Trump will, as his pal Rudy Giuliani already is suggesting, will pull out of the final two debates. Maybe because Trump now will unleash his threatened attacks on the Clinton family, i.e. using President Clinton’s marital infidelities more publicly (which only will open Trump to the same criticisms and, I doubt, gain him any votes. But left on his own, he just can't help himself). Maybe Trump will develop some policy proposals that make sense. Maybe Hillary will make another dumb "deplorables" type comment.

But, back to the debate itself. The only policy idea Trump mentioned all night was his theft of Ronald Reagan’s policy: cut taxes. Trump believes if we do that, the wealthy “will create jobs.” Otherwise he had no policy suggestions that I heard but he had a lot of criticisms of the government, Hillary and the country.

He’s still pushing that he alone is the one who can lead the working man and woman back to being full participants in the economic recovery. This from the man who wants to cut taxes on the wealthy. This from the man who proudly last night said that his taking advantage of contractors and working people was good business and that his corporate bankruptcies were him showing how smart he was to take advantage of the laws in place and that his not paying taxes (which he came awfully close to admitting) again shows how smart he is.

In short, he’s a rich guy who gets richer by using the laws created to help businesses, not individuals, and by using accounting gimmicks and gaming the laws so as not to pay his taxes and contribute to maintaining a social safety net and a military capability for our country. And by screwing the little guy. This is the man claiming to be leading a populist movement.

Trump last night reminded me a lot of Al Gore, whose deep breaths of exasperation did him in during one of his debates. Trump sighed, gasped, interrupted throughout the night.

On Mrs. Clinton’s side, she was not immune from stretching the truth in her comments (TPP is one example. She was a strong supporter when it was created but that support faded, not because of Trump, as he claimed, but because of the politics of the issue); she does have an email problem (at least she admits it though). She was not called to task by Trump or the moderator on her “deplorables” comment or other comments she’s made – fault Mr. Trump for not finding ways of working those in to his answers. (Snarky but true tangent: It’s hard to work in that kind of thing when he’s so focused on talking about himself or Rosie O’Donnell. The election is supposed to be about us, not him.)

She did look more presidential than he did, again a low bar but she looked like the adult on the stage last night.

What she did prove is that preparation matters. Trump, if we’re to believe him and his camp – and we are constantly admonished by Mr. Trump to “believe me” – did not prepare. He thought he was back on the GOP primary stage with multiple other candidates where he could hide for long periods of time, and then pop in with a put down or a coarse nickname and steal the headline. Not a smart one-on-one strategy, though.

Last night, Trump was out of his league on the debate stage. She was prepared, he was not. She did show a “friendlier” side of her personality and was unflappable. She had a strategy and wasn’t knocked off of it. If he had a strategy, I can’t tell you what it was.

Unlike others “punditting” on the debate, I thought Trump was never strong, not even in those first 10 minutes others are crediting him with strength. During those 10 minutes he was more understated, he called her “Secretary” Clinton instead of “crooked” Hillary, and that for him I guess is considered a sign of maturity and he wasn’t out of control. Yes, the measurement of an acceptable presidential candidate has changed.

The split-screen presentation was a very smart way to produce the debate so we could watch their reactions in real time. I found myself focused on whoever wasn’t talking at the moment to catch their reactions. And Lester Holt did fine. He asked questions, and let them have at it. Did he have full control of the show? No, he didn’t, but I’ve yet to see a moderator in a presidential debate have full control, it’s not what we want from debates. We want some give and take and free form. We want to see who these people really are.

But this is just the first of three scheduled presidential debates. We’ve seen others lose the first debate (hello Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan) and come back to win the next debate and the election. Oh, and the election after that, too.

The question is, can Donald Trump learn from his mistakes. Oh, wait, he doesn’t admit to making mistakes so I’m guessing not.

2 Comments

Did you know there's a debate tonight?

9/26/2016

0 Comments

If you weren’t aware by now, the BPD (Big Presidential Debate) is tonight. Like me, I’m sure you’ve read all the hype and analysis on how it should go, how it might go and how Lester Holt should handle his duties as moderator.

Debates typically don’t make a huge difference in how an election turns out. But they do often matter on the edges. And this is an edge election if ever there was one. Those few folks who haven’t made up their minds or who are parked in a third-party candidate’s stable for now but are moveable will make the difference in this election. The country, as always, is pretty much split among the partisans for each side.

The shrinking middle will, again, decide this election. People who are in Clinton’s camp are not likely to move to Trump’s, or vice versa.

So, what to expect tonight? No one knows but my guess is we’ll see the same Trump we’ve come to know – unpredictable, who starts out being what in his case represents “presidential” (though I haven’t seen that side of him myself yet; and talking from a teleprompter is not how Lincoln or Washington demonstrated “presidential.”).

On the other side, I expect we’ll see Hillary try to be more personable but, again, she’s who she is. And while people who know away from the cameras say privately she is a much more likeable personality, her public face is not that.

Substantively? Hillary will win on substance if substance matters this year, and it should. Trump didn’t all of a sudden bury himself in policy details to get ready for the debate, it’s not who he is. He gets by on gut, that he is the “change” candidate in this election, and bravado.

The bar is lower for Trump to come out well. The bar is high for her. That’s unfortunate because too often the media after the fact becomes a who-wins-and-who-loses discussion. With a low bar, it’s easier for him to win – of course in my mind serving as President is always a high bar. But that’s so old school.

Holt also will be judged. Was he fair? Did he call out misstatements of facts by the candidates?

I’ve gone back and forth on this question. While I don’t want Holt to become the issue, I do want Holt to be the reporter – and reporters should hold candidates, all candidates, to one bar – the truth. He can’t interrupt on every questionable fact that will be uttered tonight – if he did, he’d probably get the bulk of air time. But he has to find the right combination of allowing the candidates to fact check each other and his saying, “Mrs. Clinton/Mr. Trump that just isn’t true because...” A tough spot to be in but he’s a journalist and that is his job. His role isn't to be liked but to get accurate information to the public.

Partisans will come away from tonight thinking their candidate “won” but the question really is, did the country win by witnessing an honest debate that doesn’t rest on untruths, lies, misstatements and name-calling but on a fair representation of who deserves to win this election.

0 Comments

Is the media finding its sea legs?

9/19/2016

1 Comment

The times they may be a-changing.

Donald Trump has brought all kinds of things into American politics this year. Immature name-calling. Quarter-inch deep policy proposals. Racism, sexism and religion-ism. Mocking disabled people. Calling Mexicans rapists. Threatening to ban a religion. Calling a judge unfair because he’s of Mexican heritage and Trump wants to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. And more.

One thing he may also have unintentionally introduced is more honest reporting by the media. He may call them "dishonest" but the media finally is finding its game.

In just the last few days: the New York Times ran a two-column NEWS ANALYSIS to lead the paper because Trump finally admitted (I think) that Barack Obama is a natural born American. But he had to add that the birther controversy was started by Hillary Clinton in her 2008 campaign. A flat-out bald-and-bold-faced lie. I'm not sure the Times, or any paper, ever led their paper with a news analysis before. And the analysis was that Trump has lied -- for years and as recently as days before his big announcement -- about Obama's birthplace.

And, he did that after hyping that he’d have a major announcement which drew all the media and, of course, live cable news coverage. Problem was the coverage was of his new Washington, D.C., hotel. And he kept everyone waiting more than an hour to make an almost two-sentence declaration of Obama’s heritage. Something we’ve all known for years. As the President announced the next day: and in other news, the earth is round.

And then, the media began to shift. We had the Times lead news analysis the next day. We heard John King say on CNN air that the media were “played again” by Trump. We saw everyone from Anderson to Jake to others not letting Trump surrogates get away with furthering the lie and trying to get them to focus on the question asked and answer it. And what proof was there that Hillary’s campaign started the birther rumor? (Oh, it was a volunteer in Iowa who wrote a memo and was fired immediately.

Finally, the media was doing its real job: Getting at the truth and not allowing blatant lies from being told on its air and on its pages. Getting to the truth for the American people. That’s the media’s job.

This, is a good thing. And it should hold true for Trump and Clinton. It’s tricky. You have to know they are lying but this year, that’s pretty much all the time for Trump. And he shouldn’t get away with getting hours of free air time for his inane speeches, believe me.

So, kudos to the media…so far.

1 Comment

Adding Yos! to the Oys!

9/15/2016

0 Comments

A week ago I started a new Oy! feature in this space to highlight those things in life that make you go…Oy! It occurred to me that there also are, of course, positive things in life that deserve a shout out. So, today we begin the Oy! .. Yo! feature, where those Yo! moments will be highlighted too. Be prepared, my nature (as those who know me personally understand) is to hear Oy! moments more frequently.

So let’s start with a Yo!

A Yo! goes out to the Rev. Faith Green Timmons, pastor of the predominantly African American Bethel United Church in Flint, Mich. Donald Trump visited the church yesterday with the expectation he would congratulate church members on their work in the water-challenged city, where tainted water is making adults and children very ill, with long-term implications. A pamphlet was distributed to church members saying Trump’s visit “in no way represents an endorsement." Trump began his remarks including his standard attack on Hillary Clinton and Pastor Timmons interrupted him to say “Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us not make a political speech.” Trump, to his credit, thanked her politely and skipped the attack to talk about the water. To Pastor Timmons, five Yos! for holding Trump to the commitment he made and having the fortitude to interrupt him when his attack began. So, Pastor, Yo! Yo! Yo! Yo! Yo!

All today’s Oys! go to Trump or his campaign (shocking, I know).

Trump nearly earned a Yo! for being so gracious when Pastor Simmons interrupted him. But he turned that into an Oy! this morning when he returned to his old self and was critical of the Pastor for what he intimated was her nervousness (understandable when introducing a presidential candidate) and alleging that her behavior was planned, so he was set up. Let’s say four Oys!, only because we’ve come to expect this behavior from him so the number of Oys! isn’t what it would be for the “normal” person. So, Mr. Trump, Oy! Oy! Oy! Oy!.

We, I hope, won’t have Trump to kick around much longer so he gets three more Oys! because he said efforts by previous campaign leaders to remake him into a politician were “dishonest.” The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump said he resisted these efforts at times by misbehaving and going off script. Since he’s more comfortable with his new team, he said, he now is following their advice, which in most cases is the same as the advice he was given by his previous team(s). Result: fewer headlines over impolitic comments. So Trump, like an immature child, didn’t like his previous parents and acted out against them but now he likes his new parents so he follows their advice. Mr. Trump, Oy! Oy! Oy!

Trump’s newest campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, gets five Oys! herself for defending Trump’s (until this morning) failure to disclose detailed health records by saying, “I don’t know why we need such extensive medical reporting when we all have a right to privacy.” Wrong on a couple of points, Ms. Conway. First, we do deserve to know the health, and I think psychological history, of the folks we are interviewing to be our president, especially when they would be the first or third oldest ever elected. And, we have a right to see their tax records, too, especially Trump’s who claims to be (1) a billionaire, (2) give of “tens of millions of dollars” to charity in his life, and (3) because we have a right to know what, if any, conflicts exist between his many international business interests and the issues he’d face as President. Also, by the way, did we really “deserve” to see President Obama’s birth certificate as your boss demanded a few years ago? Ms. Conway, Oy! Oy! Oy! Oy! Oy!

0 Comments

A debate thought -- to keep them (more) honest

9/14/2016

1 Comment

Even without the happenings of the last few days – Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment and her compulsion to keep her health issues (and other things) secret – the presidential debates were set up to be a major moment in this campaign. Possibly the decisive moment.

The poor performance of Matt Lauer in the near-debate program he hosted puts more pressure on the moderators and panel to ask smart and pertinent questions and try to keep the candidates honest in their claims. Each has had an aversion to the truth-and-nothing-but in this campaign.

The issue has been – how do you do that without the moderators making themselves referees rather than moderators and making themselves the issue instead of the candidates?

I’m not sure there is a good way for them to moderate AND to keep the candidates honest and still look fair. But, here’s a thought:

Hold the debates as normal, with the candidates, we assume, trying to keep each other honest and then, toward the end of the program, have a segment including at least two of the nation’s most credible fact checkers? Then, to add more “entertainment-value” to it, and to be fair, come back to the candidates to respond to the fact-checkers.

A complicated format, maybe, but one that allows the moderator to keep the show on time and moving, but also a show that has truth at its core? Plus, in true TV ratings fashion (as if these debates need more than these candidates to get ratings) it adds two bits of drama: what the fact-checkers will say and what the candidates will respond when they get their chance.

There are credible and objective fact checkers these days. A sampling:

FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which calls itself a “nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer advocate, for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
Politifact.com, a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics. PolitiFact is run by editors and reporters from the Tampa Bay Times, an independent newspaper in Florida, as is PunditFact, a site devoted to fact-checking pundits. And which has won a Pulitzer Prize
Fact Checker of the Washington Post, written by Glenn Kessler, an award-winning journalist for three decades who has earned a respected reputation for checking facts uttered by politicians and elected officials.

Many of these checkers already have checked many of the “facts” these two candidates have put forward in this campaign, from Mrs. Clinton’s email saga to Donald Trump’s “opposition” to the Iraq war. The candidates will certainly introduce new “facts” to check in the debate but are sure to repeat ones they repeat all the time.

There may be, of course, those “facts” that can’t be checked quickly enough to report in real time but the checkers can say that they have other facts that need more time to be investigated and those will be checked and reported broadly.

Mostly, it would keep the candidates more honest on the statements they have been making, which was the major issue Lauer did not address while questioning Trump on national security. And, by having the candidates come back after The Check to respond, or not, the candidates get the last say. Lastly, then it won’t be the moderator or panel that, among its other jobs, has to keep all things honest and puts them in a position of appearing prejudiced, taking attention away from the "debate" itself.

I realize this is a bit complicated but it is a way to take some pressure off the moderators who will be trying to fact-check (or not, as one of them, Chris Wallace, has said is not his job) but still give the public a chance at getting at the truth.

Worth a try?

1 Comment

Hillary's real illness: Lack of transparency

9/12/2016

1 Comment

Political campaigns go through cycles. One candidate mucks up, the other gains. The other mucks up, etc. Polls swing and ebb, and flow. Some people react to each movement up, or down, and can drive themselves crazy with the now-almost-daily counting of what voters would have done yesterday, not what they will do tomorrow.

This presidential cycle, as has been noted numerous times, is maybe the most horrible we’ve ever witnessed and certainly is the one with what many consider the worst choice we’ve ever had to make – which nominee is less worse to vote for seems to be the standard for deciding.

On that standard, this was not a good weekend for Hillary Clinton.

She started with the very un-Hillary-like slip of the tongue saying half of Donald Trump’s supporters fit in the “deplorables basket,” people who she meant support racism, sexism, and all the other bad “isms.” For a woman known as maybe the most careful presidential candidate ever, a very strange slip.

Then came her near fainting spell Sunday. Turns out, she has pneumonia, an illness that can affect an older person in strange ways – physically and mentally.

Could the pneumonia have caused her Friday tongue slip? I make no excuses for her, let’s call it a slip of the tongue but it could have been a symptom of the pneumonia.

Whichever, it was stupid. If she was that sick, she shouldn’t have attended the fund raiser in the first place. And then maybe she would have been more rested for the more publicly important anniversary of 9/11.

What is stupider, though, is her lack of transparency, her seeming belief that she has the right, as a potential president of the United States, to keep things from the voting public. In this case, the truth about her health.

Donald Trump has made all kinds of unsubstantiated statements about her health, about her fitness to be president. We all toss them off as the serial ravings of a walking, talking lunatic. But, a broken clock is right twice a day and he has fallen upon a raving that isn’t such a rave.

But Clinton’s mistake is not that she is in chronic bad health. Her mistake is not being transparent.

Imagine for a minute that her campaign, when it knew she was diagnosed with pneumonia last week, immediately told the public she had pneumonia, and might even miss a few valuable days of campaigning.

Her weakness Sunday would have been viewed in a completely different way. We all can get pneumonia, logical thinking people would have thought, and here is a woman who has been campaigning 24/7 for a very long time, who is 68 years old and who has a history of blood clots. None of that is disqualifying but it would be a way of putting context into her episode of the weekend -- before it occurred.

The bigger picture (reasons to vote for someone): I was talking to a fellow the other day who isn’t as addicted to politics as others of us. Thus, he is more a typical voter. He is a “normal” American, struggling to make a living, frustrated by the direction of the country and even more frustrated, I assume, about his inability to get ahead as he approaches retirement age. He knows my political background and asked me my view of the presidential campaign. I gave it. Simply put: After much struggle, I decided Hillary Clinton is a less-worse choice than Donald Trump.

He grimaced saying, yeah, that may be right but I just don’t trust her, all politicians lie. Maybe we should let him shake up DC. I saw him against this morning and, with a bit of a smile, said, "see, she's sick and lied about it." And that, my friends, I think sums up what undecided voters are going through.

They are not always looking, in this election, for the reason to vote FOR someone, but another reason to vote AGAINST someone.

So Clinton’s weekend: Not disclosing her pneumonia, having a physical episode at a very public event and her campaign not explaining why, when they knew, plays into her perception (and reality) of a lack of transparency. Any move like that on her part will cost her votes because it reinforces the perception of dishonesty that surrounds her. It's another (or reinforced) reason to vote against her. Beneficiary: Donald Trump.

So far, but the day is early, Trump is playing this one smart: He isn't commenting yet on her health.

If he can maintain that -- and that is a yuuge if -- that will benefit Donald Trump and those who support him can say, “see, he was right about her fitness.”

What can be done? Transparency.

Mrs. Clinton should immediately disclose her full health history. Today. As most candidates do. Then, demand that Trump do the same. She has disclosed her taxes; he has not. She has disclosed more medical history than he has. But he has scheduled an appearance on Dr. Oz (of course it would be on a niche TV show) this week when he supposedly will disclose more details of his health -- of course without a full press corps to question him. Get ahead of him. Set the standard he should meet on his TV appearance before he does.

And demand he release his taxes, too, as you did. That will be the most informative thing we can learn about Trump. Plus, learn that if you become President, transparency works better than hiding.

Let both of them put it all out there so we can see what we’re buying. And so we can cast a more reasoned vote.

1 Comment

The "debate" debate

9/8/2016

0 Comments

If last night’s non-debate between the presidential candidates is any example, the real face-to-face debates may be worse.

If anything, last night’s show demonstrated why the pressure will be on the moderators, not the candidates. Matt Lauer, host of the “Today Show,” wasn’t the best choice since he isn’t a real news-person. He had fewer than 30 minutes with each candidate, both of whom prefer filibustering and pointing a finger at the other to focusing on what they would do as president. The moderator, though, needs to assert some ground rules (and enforce them) to make it work.

Lauer pressed Clinton several times to keep it short or wrap it for time. He must have thought he was hosting “Today” where you better make sure the ads get in before any substance on the show.

What it tells us, what we knew already, is that the moderators in the real debates will be closely watched as to their performance. You don’t want to be the normally terrific Candy Crowley who a few years ago was perceived as inserting herself into the debate as she tried to keep the candidates honest. On the other hand, candidates should not get a pass on blatant lies

Lauer was tougher on Clinton than he was on Trump and that may be because of Trump’s style. Clinton was more defensive and careful (shocking!) in her answers. Trump, who cares less about being truthful than about sounding strong and consistent (even though he isn’t), rolls over any moderator.

Lauer asked each candidate at the beginning of their 30 minutes not to use the time to criticize the other. Clinton, up first, lasted about 10 minutes before she pointed a finger or two at Trump. That made Trump’s play easier because she already broke the “rule” so he was free to at any time. So he did (as would have I). Lauer, having not cut off Clinton, had to allow Trump the same leeway. Thus, as Mr. Trump would say, “it was a disaster.”

Lauer let Trump get away with citing a veterans plan that differs from the plan on his web site. He let Trump get away with saying he was against the Iraq war from Day One (he wasn’t).

Using last night as a learning experience, the moderators for the debates have their work cut out for them. They can’t be rolled over but they can’t be seen as running rough shod, either.

I’ve seen experts suggest things such as have no audience, so no one is playing to the crowd and the crowd isn’t responding with applause or chuckles. A good idea.

Another is to shut the mic off of the one whose turn it isn’t, to cut down on the interrupting of each other. Another good idea. These aren’t “debates” anyway so why let them interrupt each other, other than (and this likely is the reason) it’s good TV to watch two presidential candidates arguing with each other. So, another idea worth trying.

You could penalize a candidate time when he or she uses the time to criticize the other. So, instead of getting two minutes to answer a question, they get two minus whatever time they wasted on the barbs. An idea, but likely too unwieldy and seemingly “unfair” to the candidates.

I wish I had the answer as to how you keep the candidates offering their own solutions rather than tearing down the other. I wish I could tell TV news-people how to stop an interviewee from filibustering, as surrogates for both sides do on all the news shows today. Not only do voters not get the whole truth and nothing but, they get only what the surrogates or candidates want to say. The moderators on those shows have seemed frustrated by that but helpless to stopping it.

With all the bright folks working at the networks, where the moderators come from, and the smart folks from the debate commission, not to mention thousands of political scientists, many of whom study debate process – I’m hoping they figure out a better way than last night.

It was not a show where we learned anything other than the talking points and standard barbs we’ve been hearing. To the TV networks I would say, that is not even good TV.

0 Comments

Remove Trump's mask...it's Eddie Haskell!

9/1/2016

1 Comment

'Mrs. Cleaver, you look great!'

Remember Eddie Haskell? He was Wally's best friend on "Leave it to Beaver." The guy who’d be all Mr. Polite and Sweetness, tell Mrs. Cleaver she looked beautiful today, and then, when she was out of the scene, flip to his real self – a wise-cracking jerk who mocked Wally and the Beav’s parents.

That’s the image I had yesterday watching Donald Trump’s not-so-bad visit with the president of Mexico and then his back-to-himself immigration non-reset speech.

The password for the day among his staff and supporters, clearly, was “presidential.” Trump would be “presidential” today – meeting with a head of state, giving a major policy address. Presidential!

He kinda-sorta was presidential with the Mexican president (well, except for that little lie about not discussing who’d pay for the wall) but from the git-go in his Phoenix speech he was the shouting, angry Donald Trump we’ve come to know and not love.

He promised a big, beautiful wall paid for by the Mexican government – “but they don’t know it yet.” Well, he had the perfect opportunity to let the president of Mexico know that morning but didn’t seem to have the guts to tell him to his face. I guess that’s what he calls being presidential.

He vowed to deport the criminal illegal aliens “in the first hour” of his presidency ( I guess as he’s being sworn in and transported to the White House for his parade, with maybe a stop at his new hotel which is on the way) and before he even finds the Oval Office to sign any order to deport those criminals.

Oh, and by the way, we’re no longer talking about the 11 million illegals in this country as he’s been saying for a year-plus. Now he’s talking about the 3 million or so he says have committed crimes here but are still living here illegally. That doesn’t comport with the best official estimates of the government, which is probably more in the hundreds of thousands (still a lot) but hundreds of thousands doesn’t sound so good in his Eddie Haskill-bully rants. And then he paraded those poor family members of people killed by illegal aliens across the stage to say they are voting for him. Very presidential.

And that 11 million figure he's been using for more than a year? Now he says no one knows what the real number is. "it could be 3 million, it could be 30 million," he said.

Oh, and not only will the Mexican government pay for his wall but the “Gulf states” are going to pay for the safe zones to keep the deportees after he tosses them out. Man, if we knew it was this easy to get others to foot our bills we shoulda done this long ago!! In his mind, these things are so easy! Thankfully, we’re not all residents of his mind.

Mr. Tough Guy, Mr. Non-Politican wimped out from telling the Mexican president he would, indeed, pay for the wall, using the excuse after that there’s plenty of time for that discussion (true, but when the president starts the meeting saying he won’t pay, it seems the appropriate comeback would be to reinforce your opening position, no?). And then Mr. Non-Politician played lying pol he says he detests the rest of the day. Using a teleprompter to boot.

In short, Trump was Trump yesterday. A guy who’s position shifts by the hour. A guy who is one thing here and the opposite there. A guy whose position you will never know. Never. Probably because he has no positions. Just lines to incite cheers from his faithful.

So, 10 weeks out from the election for any folks wavering on whether to vote for him, you now for sure know who he is. Not even a “typical” pol who covers his or her bases by parsing words, but a lying wimp.

I'd sooner vote for Eddie Haskell.

1 Comment

Not surprisingly, Clinton wins debate

Did you know there's a debate tonight?

Is the media finding its sea legs?

Adding Yos! to the Oys!

A debate thought -- to keep them (more) honest

Hillary's real illness: Lack of transparency

The "debate" debate

Remove Trump's mask...it's Eddie Haskell!

Archives

B. Jay Cooper

powered by bjaycooper.com