Blog Archives

This October surprise is especially dangerous

10/29/2016

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…that nasty five-letter word – email – comes back on the table.

I was watching CNN when the news broke. And I watched it for a bit after the news broke. They discussed it, based only on the info in the FBI director’s letter, which provided little information and no specifics. Which did not stop those highly paid talking heads from speculating on all manner of things. It was ridiculous “reporting” and subject for another day.

I’m not going to do the same since, like you and them, I have NO idea what’s going on. I do agree with both sides that the public deserves more information from the FBI now, not later. We know that will be insufficient info, but what we have doesn’t even meet the insufficient test.

Could it be serious? Sure. Of course. I doubt it, but that’s based only on what’s on the record – that the FBI has investigated the matter and found Hillary Clinton very sloppy but not criminal based on what they knew earlier in the year.

I get why the FBI director felt compelled to tell someone he maybe-might-could have information that’s pertinent but even he is saying he doesn’t yet know if it’s pertinent and we can’t elect a president based on that information void. That’s not to say folks should vote for Donald Trump, it’s just to say – we need more information.

Worst case scenario: if this latest development turns out to be her doing something illegal, then we all need to reassess what should be done in this election. And we need it now, Director Comey. Sorry you have created this void and you need to fill it.

Also, if no further info comes out until after the election and she wins and then we learn of some criminal behavior, it will be a constitutional and societal crisis. If people are concerned about the potential violence from vigilantes policing our voting places, imagine an election where Clinton wins and then we learn there is a serious, criminal issue. And that with a defeated and conspiratorial Donald Trump further stirring up the vigilantes.

Lacking that further info, I don’t see it making a huge impact on the election. On the margins, yes. Of course the margins may matter big league in some states that are close. The polls have shown that supporters on both sides – this of course is before the latest October surprise – are solidly behind their chosen candidate. There are some voters who have recently made up their minds or are still undecided where it may matter, though.

Mostly, I have no idea what it all means other than I want more information, and I’m sure you do, too.

2 Comments

The 'rig' is up

10/26/2016

0 Comments

If the system is rigged against Donald Trump as he claims, it mucked up yesterday when the Department of Health and Human Services which is, if I’m right on this (and I am), headed by an appointee of President Obama who is supporting Hillary Clinton, announced that those on Obamacare are facing a rate hike.

If you're a good conspiracy, that's not something you want announced two weeks before Election Day when the momentum is with you. A good conspiracy would hold that news at least 14 days.

And that is something that seems to have reminded Trump that elections are largely about policy or at least the hint that policy is important, a hint he is only just getting it seems.

I don’t want to overstate the case – okay, I do – but if Trump rails, and he does, about the system being rigged – voting, media, policy – against him, why would the Great Left Wing Conspiracy allow such an announcement of rate hikes to be made two weeks before the election when everything seems to be going Hillary Clinton’s way? Would seem to be a buzz kill for her. And a possible momentum changer.

I want to overstate it because the system is not rigged against Donald Trump. Put the media aside a minute...wait, don’t. The media also is not rigged against him. The media was his best friend early in his primary candidacy when they over-covered his rally speeches, giving him hours of free time while he spent very little money to publicize his brand, uh, I mean his candidacy. And, he still is getting the bulk of the air time, albeit it not all positive.

Former President Clinton’s visit with the attorney general on the tarmac some months ago was ill-advised but my guess is not aimed at helping out his wife’s troubles with investigations at the time. The attacks on Mosul are not about the campaign – I hope that if Mr. Trump ever did have a role in war-making putting the lives of our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers at risk – he wouldn’t make such decisions based on the election calendar. (By the way, Mr. Trump, hard to spring a surprise attack on a city surrounded by desert but I know you knew that since you know more than the generals).

It isn’t all a conspiracy, Mr. Trump. And I’m not sure if that’s you talking or your senior advisors who have made their livings off conspiracy theories and will return to that profit-making venture in two weeks. (I'm talking to you Steve Bannon and David Bossie.)

Trump is, as we all know, about his “brand.” That’s why he’s used his properties as backdrops for press conferences and speeches for the last year. That’s why he was at his Miami golf course yesterday when he called upon his employees to speak highly of him in public – I won’t even go there on how objective these folks were being with the boss and national media looking on. And that is why he is appearing at the (second) grand opening of his swanky D.C. hotel today. (Uh, Mr. Trump, you aren’t going to win the District of Columbia in next week’s voting, so why not go to a state where you have a chance? Oh, I know, because you have a new hotel that’s already lowering its room rates.)

So let’s forget about the “rigged” system. There’s no more a Great Left Wing Conspiracy now than there was a Great Right Wing Conspiracy when Hillary Clinton was talking about one when the shoe was on the other foot some decades ago.

0 Comments

It's just about over

10/20/2016

0 Comments

The final presidential debate gave all of us a good picture of what kind of a president each candidate would make. There actually was some substance on issues, on which they differ mightily. And there was, as always, lots of evidence as to how each would perform in the job.

Majorities don’t like either candidate and each has a base of votes that we’ll call the “anyone but the other candidate” voters. One of these two, though, will be the next president.

Hillary Clinton was who she is: smart, determined, focused, a bit stiff with no obvious sense of humor in public. Donald Trump was who he is: easily thrown off his game, uninformed except for the knee-jerk conservative talking points, unable to think ably on his feet, easily baited.

Okay, I’m prejudiced – I like nothing about Donald Trump, but I also think those descriptions are pretty accurate.

After watching each of them last night – in what was the best of the three debates for determining who each is and hearing some substance – I know who I’d want sitting across from other foreign leaders in a face-off. Clinton had her strategy, and stuck to it. She jabbed and bobbed and jabbed again. She had a goal and stuck with it until she achieved it. Trump's goal, at least at the start, seemed to be to look presidential, to not fly off the handle at the first slight. He pretty much achieved that for the first half of the debate, clearly coached that he needed to be controlled to appear presidential

But Clinton kept at her jabbing and wore him down in the second half of the debate. Then, he couldn’t resist his uncontrollable urges to say things like: “nasty woman,” or use the word “hombres” when talking about Mexican drug lords, or praising moderator Chris Wallace’s question when it matched Trump’s own view about Clinton (to which Wallace sarcastically responded, “thank you.”).

He said the stories by women who have accused him of unwanted sexual advances have been “debunked,” when they haven’t been other than by his saying they aren’t true and announcing that they were so untrue, he didn’t apologize to his wife – that should be proof enough of the women’s dishonesty, I imagine. Oh, and remember when his running mate, Mike Pence, said the day of the accusations that Trump would provide opposing evidence “in a few hours?” He still produced that evidence.

Bottom line, for me, are three takeaways:

Hillary Clinton is more than strong enough to represent our country with other foreign leaders. She has the political experience for that and to deal with domestic issues, maybe not always in a way I’d like but in a way which display her principles. She is determined and can focus. Yes, her honesty is always a question in your mind.
Donald Trump is a wild card. He can learn talking points. He can lie. He can totally disregard what he said yesterday and say the opposite today, and believe it apparently. And, his parting shot – where he said he’d let us know down the road if he’d accept the vote on Nov. 8 is disqualifying on its own. He is taking a bedrock of our democracy and saying he’ll let us know if he’ll honor it, depending on his mood. This part of our democracy is probably what has been admired most in the world for hundreds of years (by the way, the recount in the 2000 Bush-Gore election was an honest disagreement and it fell within the rules of what required a recount in Florida. People can debate the Supreme Court’s decision, but the challenge was based on the law not on a “feeling” that dead people are voting. Even if Gore didn't agree with the Supreme Court's judgement, he honored it and graciously conceded. Trump is alleging fraud-before-the-fact and with no evidence).
Chris Wallace did a masterful job of moderating. I had the sense he was always in control and he asked good questions that forced answers, not open-ended questions the candidates could take in whatever direction they wanted. He admonished the audience appropriately. And he gave those of us non-Fox News watchers a reason to try it out, as long as he is on air.

0 Comments

Trump: anarchist, dictator or both?

10/19/2016

0 Comments

Donald Trump’s party platform finally is clear to me: anarchy/dictatorship.

I don’t say this lightly. Trump makes up facts. He creates conspiracies. And now he is telling his voters to vote, and then go to watch the polls in "certain communities."

I’m no poll watching expert but each state has rules for how to become a poll watcher. Some, such as Illinois (a state Trump seems to be especially concerned about because of voting in Chicago), require paperwork to be sanctioned and all require some training.

In other words, you don’t just “vote and go to another community” to watch inside the polls. You can be within a certain amount of feet of a polling place to voice support for your candidate or issue, as we all know from the signs posted telling you how far you must be.

But to just show up and “watch” inside the pols isn’t an option. Also, Trump doesn’t tell his supporters that each party already has watchers in the polls. Candidates can also, but, again, there is normally a process.

A Trump presidency scares me but even a Trump candidacy is truly frightening and can be dangerous if his voters do follow his request/demand that they go watch other polls after they vote.

Intimidation is one result, of course, but violence resulting from that intimidation is another. And, even if Trump supporters were approved as poll watchers inside, would they willy-nilly challenge a vote or would they follow some logic? Challenges of course cannot be based on the color of one’s skin, which seems to be Trump’s unstated criteria.

Trump’s allegation that an election can be fixed in this country also is false. It isn’t one election it’s thousands of elections carried out in counties and cities across the country. There are Republican and Democratic registrars of voters and their staffs (and each party’s poll watchers), police and others protecting the vote. There are laws and procedures to protect the sanctity of the ballot box. You couldn’t organize a big enough conspiracy to stuff the ballot box for a presidential candidate in a state, let alone the country.

And the national media are not sitting down with either party determining how best to affect an election. Do the media run in cycles of stories that appear to favor one or the other candidate? Yes, but that’s another debate – not one that’s there to fix an election but a question of media balance. Difficult in this age of cable news and the Internet. Yet a legitimate debate nonetheless and one I hope the media undertake after this election.

Most look at Trump and see a dictator. He looks at himself as, apparently, a dictator and anarchist. Either is anathema to our democracy. He gets more dangerous as he (im)matures as a candidate.

0 Comments

Now he's just ticking me off

10/14/2016

1 Comment

I think it’s fair to say to those who regularly read this blog that I am no fan of Donald Trump. Never was, never have been, never will be. I have written reams about his behavior, his unfitness for the Oval Office, the lunacy of him even being a major party candidate for president.

But, now, he’s just pissing me off.

A tape appears – with his voice on it – describing, in what he thought was a private conversation his male macho bragging about how he has his way with women who don’t want him to. He described sexual assaults including when he’d just “grab their pussy” and there were no consequences. After all, he was a “big star” and who would complain. He could get away with it, he said, to laughs from Billy Bush.

Then, we start hearing women go public – on the record, on tape – describing exactly the behavior Trump bragged about, and he says they are lying. And, as of this writing, says he has proof of their lying, but has yet to disclose that proof.

He described his behavior and these women told stories confirming his behavior.
He called his braggadocio just “locker room talk” and, by now, you all have heard men who say they never sat in a locker and described how they would criminally sexually attack a woman nor did they hear anyone else do that. But Donald did. For the record, I never heard anyone say in a locker room they sexually assaulted women or fantasizing about doing so.

After successfully avoiding the question in Sunday’s debate, Trump finally stated “no, I did not” when asked by Anderson Cooper if he ever actually did sexually attack a woman. Anyone with a brain above their waist knew it was only a matter of time before women broke their silence and unveiled the ways he attacked them. He basically asked for it with his debate answer. He assaulted them years ago and rubbed it in Sunday night. What did he expect? They'd continue to stay quiet?

He, of course, has his defenders even in this area. Rose Tripp, GOP national committee woman from New Mexico, was quoted in the New York Times saying, “he who is without sin can cast the first stone.” Committeewoman Tripp, I am not without sin – but I have never talked like Mr. Trump did in a locker room or out. And I certainly never behaved like him. Nor has any man I have had in my company.

Trump dismissed those who came out to tell stories of his sexual attacks as using “false smears.” Trump inadvertently admitted his guilt here. How? A “smear” is defined as to “damage the reputation of someone by false accusations; slander.” A “false” smear then would be a true statement. I think he was reading from the teleprompter he said he’d never use when he said that so it was a thought-out phrase.

Oh and there’s that woman who said Trump groped her in first-class on a plane, quite in public. Trump’s defense? Would he actually do that with witnesses around, or words to that effect? To which I say, if a woman was going to make up a story about you groping her, wouldn’t she say it was in private so it would be at worst ‘he said, she said’ and not be subject to a witness coming up to say it didn’t happen?

I mean, Lord, Trump. I know that you can lie much better than that. You have, and you are.

He also says these women are doing it for their 15 minutes of fame. Gee, exactly how women want to get their fame – admitting to being groped by Donald Trump. In his mind that apparently is a major compliment. Hell, he even says he wouldn’t have groped one woman who has alleged assault against him because, hey, have you seen her? “I don’t think so,” he told a rally to huge cheers. Lord!! That means if she was, to you, more attractive, you would assault her?

Trump also issued his typical threat of a lawsuit against the New York Times for its story on one woman who testified against him in public. The Times’ lawyer countered with the basic argument against libel which is “truth is a defense” and he did it in non-lawyer language that even Mr. Trump could understand. He won’t sue, of course. He seldom does because that would mean him giving a deposition, under oath, which personally I doubt he’d take seriously anyway (which doesn’t bode well for him crossing his fingers behind his back if he ever should take the oath of office).

Many folks are supporting Trump because that’s just how much they hate Hillary Clinton. So they aren’t supporting Trump, they are opposing her. That’s sad. Not that she is a perfect candidate. She is far from it.

But she also does not blatantly lie about everything. I do not believe one word Trump says. I do not believe any of the promises he is making to the American people because he will break them as easily as he lies. I also don’t agree with some of the policies he’s actually talked about. In fact, neither does the GOP.

Has Clinton lied? I believe so. But Trump truly knows no bounds. Are the Wikileaks bad for Clinton? I guess, but most of the ones I’ve heard about are mostly insiders talking inside baseball about strategy. And if you’ve ever been in those conversations, you know they are all over the place and often are just talk. Not all, just some. Just saying.

Trump’s back to being “unleashed,” throwing people out of his rallies, threatening to, in effect, repeal the First Amendment (as if he would have the power), to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton (as if he would have the power). To throw her in jail, like any two-bit dictator does. To build his “big, beautiful wall.” His lack of knowledge knows no bounds. He insults African Americans, Jews, immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, women. He said the New York Times is out to get him because, gosh, did you know the owner of the Times is a “Mexican”? I did not know that. Nor do I care, Mr. Trump.

That’s not why reporters from legitimate news outlets do stories. In fact, having lived in a news room for 10 years of my career, I can tell you that if our owner/publisher told me to slant my stories, I would have done the opposite out of spite. I covered a union negotiation (and I was a negotiator for my own union, by the way) and as I walked along a sidewalk outside the building where the negotiations were being held, I was spit on from a fourth-story window by a union negotiator because I represented a paper whose editorial policy was anti this particular union’s positions. Spit upon. Fact was, I disliked my publisher at the time more than he did.

But that spitter was, metaphorically, Donald Trump. Believing conspiracy theories without asking the question, without paying attention to the truth.

This is the world according to Trump. And that is not a world we want to live.

1 Comment

Tearing up the GOP

10/12/2016

0 Comments

Open, trench warfare is now the way of the Republican Party. What will be left of the GOP after November is anyone’s guess.

The GOP’s presidential nominee is attacking the GOP Speaker of the House, rather than focus on Hillary Clinton who, meantime, is pulling further ahead in the race. Donald Trump also is calling fellow Republican Sen. John McCain “foul-mouthed,” rather than focusing on Hillary Clinton, who, meantime, is pulling further ahead in the race.

I guess he figures if he cannot defeat Hillary Clinton he will defeat the Republican Party. He can see that his odds of defeating the GOP are greater than his odds of defeating Clinton. After all to Trump, a win is a win. And he does not lose, in his alternate reality.

The Republican Party’s leader, Reince Priebus, meanwhile, is going down with the Trump ship, and taking the Republican Party with him. He wanted to run again for chairman. If he's tying his boat to Trump's dock...that dream will disappear.

And the millions of Trump supporters – Republicans, they say – will defeat every GOP House member they can, to get their revenge on Paul Ryan saying he will ignore the GOP presidential nominee and focus on keeping control of the House which, if he did and if Donald Trump were to win, would only accrue to Trump’s benefit.

Oh, and those Republicans who are voting for Trump because he will name their kind of justice to the Supreme Court? How do they expect to get those justices confirmed if the Democrats control the Senate? But, sure, minions -- back Trump to the hilt, don't look out for the party in any way or shape.

The Republican world is upside down. Of course in Trump World, “upside down” is a good place to be financially. Donald Trump makes money when he fails, so anything that positions him that way is a win-win to him.

I am very saddened by the destruction Trump is doing to the party. One thing to lose an election, which he is doing, but another to take the party down with him. The country needs a strong two-party system, as we’re seeing through this election.

Another question is what happens after he loses with the many millions of people he'll be leaving who will be even more frustrated by the "system?" Will he lead them to the future (doubtful), will his pal, Steve Bannon, who is likely more foul than Trump, but is rarely interviewed, on the record anyway? Those millions of people will need to be dealt with by a leader or by Clinton when she's president, a topic for future posts.

More importantly, I fear for the nation on Nov. 8. Not that I think Trump will win, I do not. But a even Trump loss also will put this nation at risk.

His claims that the election will be rigged for him to lose, could put this country into a violent state on Nov. 8 and beyond. His allegations that there will be fraud and rigging, for which there is no precedent in our history, are riot-inciting, a criminal offense. Of course for a guy who apparently feels that sexual assault is okay if you’re a celebrity, inciting a riot is no big deal.

By directing his supporters to vote and then monitor in “certain areas” to be on the lookout for fraud (as if they would know real fraud if it bit them on their asses), well…not only is he preparing his excuses for losing but he is setting up our country for needless violence on Election Day and beyond. And hate. And needless injuries. And needless further division of our country.

My friends who support Trump, that of course is your choice. But after Nov. 8, what? What do you want our country to look like and be?

The mere appearance of a bunch of angry white people at a minority neighborhood polling place could be enough to suppress the vote, another “win” for Trump because a fair election won’t be fair to him.

He will be taking his race-baiting campaign to an even lower height by pitting whites against Blacks “in certain areas.” Sad does not cover it. Tragic and possibly criminal for inciting a riot.

The man knows no boundaries or decency.

0 Comments

If Trump wins, he'd throw his opponent in jail?

10/10/2016

0 Comments

While Donald Trump, as some pundits are proclaiming, may have stemmed the tide of Republicans jumping off his sinking ship with his performance last night, and while some say he thus “won” the debate because he lost no support but didn’t gain any, I disagree.

I’ll agree he performed better than the first debate (comparing Trump to Trump) but last night he did two things that are anathema to our political process:

90 minutes before he walked on the stage to “debate” Hillary Clinton he, the presidential candidate of a major American political party, sat in a conference room and introduced women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct and then tried to get them seated with his family in the hall, which would have created that moment when they would have crossed paths with Bill Clinton on stage and forced him to confront them.
The other though was far worse. He, the presidential candidate of a major American political party, promised that if he wins the election, he will put his opponent in jail. Like any two-bit banana republic dictator would do.

Whatever else he may have said last night, that was the deal breaker on winning the debate (let alone winning any new votes or, I hope, the election). I know that many Americans hold a hatred for the Clintons and think they are criminals and liars. Some even think they are murderers. Despite no proof. I know people who believe that – smart, successful people who believe that. They are not “deplorables” in any sense of the word. But they believe the Clintons have murdered people.

Do we really want a candidate for president of the United States promising to put his opponent in jail without a trial or even being charged with something criminal?

I had other stuff I was going to write about last night. From the sublime – something on policy because there actually were a couple of statements on real policy or his choosing to stand with Vladimir Putin on a point rather than his vice presidential running mate – to the ridiculous, kind of half-wanting Bill Clinton, when he shook hands with Melania Trump, to grab her pussybow blouse, because apparently Donald thinks worse than that is okay so may as well do it to his wife.

But all of that fades into the word work with Trump’s promise to put Hillary in jail.

That is not the way the American process works. For that alone, Donald Trump should lose this election. For his desire to toss away more than 200 years of our history, of running elections to settle our political differences, not holding trials. Which makes us the admiration of the world. If he thinks that’s the way the political process should work, I suggest he go live in one of those countries where it’s acceptable.

He would find himself at the other end of the threat.

0 Comments

Will we see a new Trump tonight? Nah.

10/9/2016

0 Comments

Everything that can be said about Donald Trump’s latest Trump-o Eruption has been said, pretty much. Question is, what does he do at tonight’s town hall meeting with Hillary Clinton?

Does he:

As he is signaling today go after Bill Clinton’s infidelities and Trump’s allegation that Hillary Clinton not only enabled his behavior but led the attack against her husband’s accusers?
Be contrite, apologetic and the “new man” he promised two days ago that he’d be yesterday?
Attack Clinton AND continue his attacks on Republicans who he is criticizing as hypocrites which could lead to his leading a “third party”, after this election, of those who will vote for him no matter what?

I do not know. I have no idea what this man will do. There is no logic when it comes to Donald Trump. There is no redeeming value that I can see either.

I think it’s clear he will not be the new man he promised Friday that he would become the next day, which would have been yesterday, which we haven’t seen yet. He can say anything he wants today and the opposite tomorrow and see no contradiction. It’s a unique trait.

There is no excuse for his comments 11 years ago to Billy Bush about his admitted sexual attacks on women. None. It wasn’t “locker room” talk because he was talking into a hot mic, which for an experienced TV guy like Trump, he should have known could have been hot. But, even more than that, he was admitting to another human being that he sexually attacked women. Just this time, there is evidence that on one can deny and not “simply” the word of someone else.

Of course at the time he was younger and less mature. Just kidding. The son of a bitch was 60 years old. He was the man he spent his life becoming and still is.

This election is over. It was probably over before this latest episode but it is definitely over now. He will get about 40 percent of the vote, but he will lose the Electoral College by a larger number.

I don’t say take that to the bank. We all need to vote to be sure he doesn’t win the election. And, we all need to begin thinking about:

How does Hillary Clinton govern?
Can she work with a GOP House, assuming they can maintain control?
Can she control herself if she has a Democratic Congress and govern not simply as a liberal/progressive but as a president for all the people?
Can she, and the GOP, figure how to deal with the legitimate concerns of the Trump voters? Those who have been left behind and shouldn’t be?

While the major battle may be almost won – defeating Trump – the harder work lies ahead: Governing this county equitably and ending the gridlock that exists in Washington.

0 Comments

Mike Pence had it from hello

10/5/2016

1 Comment

If you are scoring last night’s vice presidential debate, the pundits have determined that Republican Mike Pence “won.” I beg to differ a bit. Pence certainly won on style – he interrupted less and was far less caffeine-induced than Democrat Tim Kaine. He looked more like a leader in comparison to his opponent, Tim Kaine (and more so than his ticket leader, Donald Trump).

But Pence “won” largely by being the anti-Kaine, and the anti-Trump. He was not bellicose or over the top or as insulting as his boss. His policy positions and rhetoric were more nuanced and sane. And he was far less impolite than his opponent who scored a 10 when it comes to interrupting.

But like his boss, Pence also lied. He said his ticket’s view, for example, is that Putin is a “dictator.” That’s far from his boss’ view. Donald Trump has been sucking up to Putin throughout this campaign. Pence denied that Trump wants to expel 11 million undocumented immigrants, repeating a Trump effort to switch focus to those immigrants to have committed crimes. And those are just two examples of a platform Pence laid out that Trump has never laid out.

Pressed to defend Trump's crazy utterings (his battle with Miss Universe, his battle with Gold Star parents, his battles with a judge hearing the Trump University case, etc.), Pence demurred every single time only to say “I stand with Donald Trump” only to not stand with him on the substance. If it was a preview of a Pence 2020 candidacy, it wasn’t bad from the GOP point of view.

Kaine began interrupting almost from the opening handshake, losing the style debate right there. He was interrupting moderator Elaine Quijano almost before she got the first question out of her mouth. (Tangent: It may have become impossible for a moderator to control these debates. She tried but she failed. And, short of turning off the mics, I’m not sure how you can do it. She kept saying “you have 30 seconds” but both candidates ignored her and she had no recourse.)

At one point in the debate, I decided both candidates were annoying. They didn’t directly answer questions asked (and they were good questions by the moderator) and moved on only to attack the other ticket. Often on topics not even asked about.

This election has become about them, not us. And that is very annoying.

By personality, Pence was predisposed to win. He is a calmer and more patient personality than Kaine. He also has years of experience as a talk radio host and, therefore, has been successful at ignoring crazy callers into his show. And last night, Kaine was the crazy caller.

Bottom line: Pence wins on style. Hard to judge who won on substance since there was little discussed. No votes picked up by either side but some who are leaning toward Trump may be comforted that Pence is the adult on the ticket.

As with every vice presidential debate, it puts things in a holding pattern until Trump and Hillary Clinton meet again Sunday night.

So, on to Sunday and the main event.

1 Comment

Number twos debate number ones

10/4/2016

0 Comments

Tonight’s vice presidential debate will be fun to watch but let’s do the post-debate analysis now: It will not affect the election. It will not change your thoughts about the presidential candidates.

These Number Two debates seldom, if ever, matter. Tonight’s, even less so because they will spend their 90 minutes going back and forth defending and attacking their bosses. Mike Pence, the GOP VP pick, has the harder job. But Tim Kaine’s is no walk in the park either. While neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton will be there, they will be the stars of the show.

The bulk of the questions likely will be about Trump and Clinton, more than Kaine or Pence, or issues. That is what our political debates have become this year. A dive to the bottom.

There is plenty of fodder for questions on Trump, and that’s before the last week when even more gas was poured on that fire: paying no taxes for nearly two decades, having his self-heralded foundation now told by the New York attorney general to cease-and-desist while he waits for the foundation to, finally, register itself so it can be legal, Trump’s battle with a former Miss Universe over her weight, etc. etc. and so forth.

And that’s not counting Trump may say this afternoon.

Both VP candidates are qualified – Pence more so than Trump. On his side, Pence will deflect, praise his boss and take questions and turn them on Clinton.

These actually are two pretty substantive guys – but you likely won’t get an insight into that tonight.

Pence could use the opportunity to try to shift the day-to-day coverage, which is all Trump all the time, to more on Clinton (would be nice if he or Kaine tried to change the topic to our lives, not theirs). It will be a heavy lift because the momentum has shifted in the days since the presidential debate, but it can be done – there’s plenty of ammunition to be aimed at Clinton.

I don’t know that Pence will tackle Hillary’s husband’s faults, not normally his style, but we’ll see. Seems to be his boss' desire. I think most of the country has discounted Bill’s marital infidelities already. And the younger voters, who weren’t around during those years, already are turned off by this election so I’m not sure where that gets the Republicans this go-round.

I think whether people like it or not they should accept that Hillary loves Bill. Why else would she still be with him? It’s not for political expedience because he’s more a rock around her neck than not and the wise political move would have been to walk away from him at some point.

VP debates are probably better known for a good line one candidate or the other gives off -- “You’re no Jack Kennedy!” being one of the best. Even when it was a substantive and respectful debate (Cheney vs Lieberman) it didn’t make a whit of difference.

This one won’t make a difference either.

But I’ll watch.

0 Comments

This October surprise is especially dangerous

The 'rig' is up

It's just about over

Trump: anarchist, dictator or both?

Now he's just ticking me off

Tearing up the GOP

If Trump wins, he'd throw his opponent in jail?

Will we see a new Trump tonight? Nah.

Mike Pence had it from hello

Number twos debate number ones

Archives

B. Jay Cooper

powered by bjaycooper.com