After Donald Trump's miserable debate performance against Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, many Republicans blamed the people tasked with preparing the ex-President. Nonetheless
The most common target was ABC News and moderators David
Muir and Linsey Davis, who, unlike the moderators of the June CNN debate
between Trump and Biden, pushed back in real time on some of Trump’s falsehoods
about abortion and immigrants abusing pets.
“Three vs. one” became a mantra on the right as Republicans
sought to portray the moderators as biased against Trump.
“This debate is three vs one — the ABC moderators clearly
shilling for Kamala Harris,” Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman
who helped Trump prepare, posted on the social platform X.
"Literally, the question to Trump was "Why did you do the horrible thing?' And the question to Harris is 'What do you think about the horrible thing Trump said?'" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Fox News.
Muir and Davis were not totally objective. However, that was not the major reason Trump lost the debate, nor that he was ill-prepared or that Harris employed a superpower to bait the former President into being his dishonest, belligerent, and fairly ignorant self.
Pundits, journalists, politicians of all political stripes have short memories. They'd better understand the dynamics of the faceoff if they recalled that, as Politico reported on October 11, 2012
Vice President Joe Biden delivered an extraordinarily
aggressive, top-to-bottom attack on the Romney-Ryan ticket Thursday, repeatedly
interrupting and even laughing at Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan during the lone vice
presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.
That's the same Joe Biden whom Harris has served under for almost four years. And in Philadelphia, the current vice president replaced her infamous cackle with laughter and a clever smile as if gasping you've got to be kidding."
Wikipedia explains "'a picture is worth a thousand words' is an adage in multiple languages meaning that complex and sometimes multiple ideas can be conveyed by a single still image, which conveys its meaning or essence more effectively than a mere verbal description."
"Can," and usually is. A verbal description is subject to refutation, valid or otherwise, while a picture stands alone, creating a powerful expression, and may be seared into memory. Most voters will little remember any details put forward either by Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump during their debate and virtually all have a working knowledge of their contrasting values and ideology. Add to that the skepticism, even cynicism, most Americans have about politicians and what they say, and few of their words will have more than very minimal impact.
By contrast, those images are more easily remembered and are generally more trusted by viewers. Republicans fear (with at least a little justification) that voters were manipulated (a charge they're wise not to make overtly) by the ABC monitors because they corrected with facts Donald Trump more than Kamala Harris and that the questions were ones more favorable to the Harris than to the Trump agenda.
But viewers were less manipulated by the ABC reporters than they were by Donald Trump's opponent, who had reason and opportunity to do so. The split screen was Harris' opportunity and persuasion was her (justified) motive.
In this specific instance, the primacy of images over words had a happy outcome, favoring considerably the less reprehensible individual over the more reprehensible individual. It will not always be thus because it typically abets the less serious, less worthy applicant for political office..
There are many reasons for Donald Trump's wretched performance in Philadelphia. It would be impolite and politically inconvenient to suggest that Kamala Harris' countenance, combined with her visual mannerisms, were the primary factors in her dominant presentation. But reality intrudes.
Not all bigotry is racism. And not all racial bigotry is racism.
This should be obvious to everyone but isn't. It's not at all clear even to prominent and respected cable news hosts. As in the video below, CNN's Jake Tapper states
Donald Trump is actually traveling with some of these folks- conspiracy peddlers. We should note a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars, perhaps no one as depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Here she is getting off of Trump's plane before yesterday's debate. Just on Sunday she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, was elected "the White House will smell like curry and White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center" On the twenty-third anniversary of 9/11, we should also note Loomer posted last year that 9/11 was an "inside job." Trump continues to bring this person along on his travels with him. Why? I don't know.
Tapper: Trump is traveling with a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars. Perhaps none so depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Just on Sunday, she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, wins, the White House will 'smell like… pic.twitter.com/J6938cwfmF
It is indeed confounding, especially when Trump probably could be using Kellyanne Conway, the smooth and effective liar and architect of "alternative facts" and the "Bowling Green Massacre." There is no accounting for why Looper would spin a story about speeches transmitted from a call center., other than Loomer possibly associating Indians with call centers, while to most of us those places seem more internationally diverse. And a Harris White House probably will not, unfortunately, smell like curry.
Nonetheless, none of this qualifies as racism. Contending that someone's home or place of business will smell of her homeland cuisine is not racist. Nor is it racist to exaggerate the degree of dominance of one group in a call center racist. If Tapper really wants to grapple with racism, he should try this:
They let- I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world.
There is nothing in there about smelly food or about people with foreign accents in call centers. Nothing about values, culture, or polytheistic religious beliefs. It pertains exclusively to blood- to race. It is discounting factors other than the inherited characteristic of race, which to Trump consigns a group of people, whatever their other characteristics, to inevitable inferiority.
That is racism, something which Jake Tapper apparently does not understand. Fortunately, there is something similar which both Laura Looper and her boss, Donald Trump, also do not understand. At the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago in late July, the former President remarked of his Democratic opponent "She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black. So I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?"
When Kamala Harris skipped out on her responsibility presiding over the Senate when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress, she didn't do so because she has identified as Indian. She is a member of the historically racially segregated sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha, whose members she considers "family." and was speaking in Indianapolis at the racially segregated, ethically dubious, Zeta Phi Beta sorority.
Harris was raised as a black woman, undoubtedly was thought of by peers as black, and has identified primarily as black. "I know Donald Trump's type," boasted the Vice President in late July.
The Democratic nominee knows her opponent's type, a claim Donald Trump can't credibly make. Neither can Jake Tapper boast- accurately- that he knows racism when he sees it.
Scott Jennings on tomorrow's debate: "I would advise him to answer all questions going back to one core issue 'If you want change I'm the change, If you want change on the economy I'm the change. If you want change on the border I'm the change' and this is how he wins."
Jennings believed before Tuesday's presidential debate in Philadelphia, and probably still does afterward, that Donald Trump's best approach would be to emphasize that he is the change agent. As a goal that probably is accurate. However the ex-President had a myriad of tactics at his disposal.
Consider a question from co-moderator Linsey Davis, who asked
Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you
said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government
buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You
supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I
know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of
your policy positions changed?
Harris first stated "so my values have not changed. and I'm going to discuss every one."
Predictably, she did not do so, instead proclaiming her support of fracking, then smoothlessly pivoting to her background as "a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother," and then talking about home ownership, sexual assault, Medicare, "and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down."
The last four items, which comprised approximately two-thirds of Harris' response, had nothing to do with the question asked. Even on that, however, the Vice-President chose, wisely, not to explain why her opinion had shifted.
As Jennings noted post-debate on CNN, you can't blame the referee (as Republicans immediately did) when you miss your jump shots. But as Jennings missed, Trump was given given a lane to drive the ball to the hoop and passed up the opportunity in order to shoot 18-foot jump shots, which missed wildly. Or as baseball fans would have it, whiffing on a hanging curve.
Trump's response to Harris' remarks about her shifting views illustrated the primary dynamic of the debate, an insistence that he never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Handed the ball on Harris' radically reversed ideology, the ex-President instead went on defense, first pleading
Well, first of all, I wasn't given $400 million. I wish I
was. My father was a Brooklyn builder. Brooklyn, Queens. And a great father and
I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction,
and I built it into many, many billions of dollars. Many, many billions. And
when people see it, they are even surprised. So, we don't have to talk about
that.
Except that he had just done so, without his opponent having brought it up at the time, and when you're explaining, you're losing. Then Trump got back on track- briefly- by stating
Fracking? She's been against it for 12 years. Uh, defund the
police. She's been against that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very
wrongly, very horribly. And everybody's laughing at it, okay? They're all
laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different
policies. Like, she was big on defund the police.
This landed with a thud. Trump could have gone with a refrain:
Also, Medicare for All, legislation, which Harris once co-sponsored and now opposes. Never mind that on a few of these issues, Harris has less changed her mind than determined to keep quiet about it, and it's the responsibility of her opponent to identify those positions she will no longer defend.
If Trump wanted to avoid citing a litany of stances on which his foe at least has equivocated, he could have emphasized two, with numbers 5 and 6 likely to have the greatest impact.
A third option would have been for him to list those issues and add one- or emphasize this with one of the others..
.
Trump is going to Trump, one might say. Given a candidate offering acriticism-rich environment, he decided to ramble about election interference, dogs in Ohio, Harris' Marxist father, Fani Willis, and anything else popping up in his mind. It is Kamala Harris' great good luck to have an opponent who can't, or won't, focus on any of his opponent's vulnerabilities.
We don't know if she loves herself, is a self-hating Jew, or a Jew-hating Jew. But we do know at least wo things about this award-winning film director (and probably many of her admirers) when she states
As a Jewish-American artist working in a time-based medium, I must note I'm accepting this award on the 336th day of Israel's genocide in Gaza and 76th year of occupation. I believe it our responsibility as film workers to use the institutional platforms through which we work to address Israel's impunity on the global stage. I stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine in their struggle for liberation.
She’s not a “self-hating Jew”. She loves herself. She’s a “Jew-hating Jew”. https://t.co/5Q2KIexLC6
One thing is clear is that Sarah Friedland is ignorant. To be Jewish is to be affiliated with a religion. Judaism is composed of Jews, and Judaism is a religion and not a national origin. There no more are Jewish-Americans than there are Muslim-Americans, Catholic-Americans, or Protestant-Americans. There are American Muslims, American Catholics, American Protestants..... and American Jews.
Equally clear is that Ms. Friedland does not believe Israel should exist, at least not as a Jewish state. The United Nations on 11-29-48 declared the end of the British Mandate and called on the parties to establish an independent state in Palestine. Thus, at midnight on May14/15, 1948- 76 years ago- the State of Israel was proclaimed. Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq immediately launched hostilities against the new nation but were pummeled.
Yet, according to Ms. Friedland, the very existence of the State of Israel, sitting upon approximately .1% of the land in the Middle East, constitutes occupation.
But this goes beyond one seriously misguided and information-challenged film worker. Reportedly, "the Venice awards ceremony had a political edge on Saturday evening as multiple winners used their acceptance speeches to express sympathy for the Palestinian people and condemn Israel's military campaign in Gaza."
Well, no, they did not "express sympathy for the Palestinian people." A Ph.D. in history is not necessary to understand that Israel sits on land traditionally known as "Palestine" and that Jews have lived on that land for millennia, in "Ottoman-controlled Palestine, the original home of the Jews." And no one needs a Ph.D. in political science or geography to know that there are Muslims considered "Palestinian" throughout the Middle East, including in Jordan, where they constitute roughly half the population.
Of course, the speakers did not speak up for those Palestinians. They have been disappeared by activists, who have no regard for Muslims, Arab or Persian, outside of Gaza or perhaps the West Bank. They cannot be concerned with them because the target of the ire is Israel, and Israel alone.
The speakers were applauded and there is no indication any was booed. The hostility to the Jewish state is widespread but concentrated in Hollywood. There is a reason for that and it has become increasingly clear that it is encapsulated in the adjective in the sentence immediately preceding this one.
The 2024-2025 NFL season kicked off on Thursday night with a home game of the Kansas City Swifties against the Baltimore Ravens. At each opening game the past eight seasons, Lift Every Voice and Sing," dubbed the "Black National Anthem," has been sung, as has the Star-Spangled Banner. This fellow is not amused:
Why has the NFL replaced our National Anthem with the so-called “BLACK” national anthem?!
We have ONE national anthem, and it’s the Star Spangled Banner.
Respectively, he's wrong, he's right, and it ain't going to happen. The Black National Anthem has been played on many occasions before NFL games since the social unrest of 2020 and the National Anthem is played before each game. Moreover, the NFL is not going to be boycotted. Television contracts already are in place and even in the unlikely event that viewership suffers, sales of merchandise ("merch") for individual teams and players will continue to soar.
However, we do have only one National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner. It's not as good a composition as is "Lift Every Voice and Sing" but it is the national anthem. If there were more than one national anthem, there would be no national anthem.
This is a difficult concept for so many people, perhaps especially educated people. Thus.....
Does the Star Spangled Banner apply to only white Americans? Or does it apply only to white and brown Americans and not black Americans? A former sports personality, now a contributor at The Atlantic, believes the answer to the latter question is "yes."
So every year we just have to go through this thing where some white people get ridiculously angry upon discovering 1) that a Black national anthem exists 2) that the NFL has been playing it for years at the start of the season.
Were this song even an anthem for a people, it would be an African-American anthem or a West Indies anthem or Caribbean anthem or, theoretically, an Asian-American or European-American anthem. "National" refers to- modifies- "nation."
There is only one national anthem in the USA, as in other nations. And, yes, we will "just have to go through this thing" every year until Hill and others overcome their racial nationalism. The National Anthem does not apply to whites, blacks. Latinos, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders or tribal matters. It belongs to all of us.
Although a charter member of the (non-existent) Double Haters for Harris club, I cannot ignore a habit of the Democratic presidential nominee.
This should have been an easy one, even for a bad press secretary. Noting the southern accent Harris briefly assumed at a rally with unions in Detroit, Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre "since when does the vice president have what sounds like a southern accent?" The press secretary responded "I have no idea what you're talking about."
Evidently, she either was lying or is simply unaware. Doocy noted that the vice president had briefly sported a southern accent in Pittsburgh, and she has done so in Atlanta.
Jean-Pierre maintained
Do you hear the question that you’re… Do you think Americans seriously think that this is an important question? You know what they care about? They care about the economy. They care about lowering costs. They care about healthcare. That’s what Americans care about. That’s what they want to hear....
They care about, your colleague just asked me about democracy, basically we talked about, went back and forth about democracy and freedom. That’s what they care about.
Having entertained- not answered, but entertained- the question, Jean-Pierre commented "I'm not even going to entertain some question about the.... Hearing it sounds so ridiculous" and a moment later characterized it as "just insane."
Alas, not so ridiculous or insane:
The ignorant or deceptive response from Karine Jean-Pierre could have been easily avoided. The official position held by Jean-Pierre is White House Press Secretary, whose "primary responsibility" (according to Wikipedia) is "to act as spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States federal government, especially with regard to the president, senior aides and executives, as well as government policies."
Jean-Pierre is not the campaign chairman. She might have legitimately sidestepped the rather snippy but legitimate query by noting that she is not a spokesperson for the campaign and that the question would be more appropriately posed to the nominee herself. "My role in this position is not to speak for her, or anyone's campaign, and you may wish to direct the question to the candidate herself" should not have been difficult to figure out.
The good news is that American voters are not averse to voting for an inauthentic politician for President: actor Reagan over Carter and Mondale; WJ Clinton over Dole; Bush over Gore and Kerry; Obama over McCain; and the ultimate in inauthenticity- Donald J. Trump- over HR Clinton. And better news: a President Trump would replace Karine Jean-Pierre (presumably with a Republican) and a President Harris probably would want her own woman or man in the position. Let's hope for the latter outcome, notwithstanding the diversity of bad accents we might be subjected to.
Social media, especially Chinese surveillance platform TikTok, often resembles a cesspool. However, sometimes something comes along that makes paying attention worthwhile.
Literally what I want is Biden to go on television and say something real about the murder of Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
Democrats had no issue using his family as a political prop. This is gut check time. Do we actually stand for something or are we producing a television show?
The parents of a 23-year-old American taken hostage by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel gave a moving speech Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention, pleading for the release of the dozens of people who continue to be held captive in Gaza.
“This is a political convention. But needing our only son — and all of the cherished hostages — home is not a political issue. It is a humanitarian issue,” said Jon Polin, whose son Hersh Goldberg-Polin lost his part of his left arm and was kidnapped from Israel by militants who attacked the music festival he was attending.
Polin and his wife, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, were greeted with an extended ovation and chants of “bring him home” by the thousands of Democratic delegates in Chicago.
That reflected a typical perspective. In a similar vein
Entering to chants of “Bring Them Home,” Jonathan Polin and Rachel Goldberg-Polin, both natives of the Chicago area, brought tears to the eyes of many in attendance with the gut-wrenching story of their son and their broader thoughts on the more than 100 hostages who have been captive held in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7.
Speaking with reporters on Wednesday night, Hersh’s parents said they didn’t know what to expect when they walked onto the stage, with Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza at times bitterly dividing Democrats and with a number of Palestinian supporters in seats at the arena.
The reception, with thunderous chants in support of the hostages, brought Goldberg-Polin to tears as she put her head in her hands before her speech got underway.
“It was completely overwhelming and unexpected. We had been preparing ourselves for a long time that we were going to get a very hard to negative response, and we were shocked,” said Goldberg-Polin. “I was really taken aback, and I wasn’t prepared for any of that. I wasn’t prepared for support and love and kindness. I was not prepared, and that’s why I became overwhelmed.”
The family needed to get its story out, and deserved to do so. However, eleven days after the Polins spoke before the DNC, Hersh-Goldbeg Polin was found by the Israeli Defense Forces in a tunnel, along with the body of five other hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023.
The response by the Administration to the murder of a dual American and Israeli citizen was, generously speaking, underwhelming when
Asked if Netanyahu should do more on the issue and whether he thinks the Israeli leader is currently doing enough, Biden offered a firm "no" as he spoke to reporters outside the White House.
He did not elaborate on the remarks.
It was prudent for President Biden not to elaborate on his remarks, and it is not unreasonable that he would not give Netanyahu a thumbs up with the U.S. presidential election looming and the Administration thus determined to end the war in any way possible.
Viewed in context, however, the Administration's response to the murder of an American citizen is feeble and feckless. Had Goldberg-Polin been exclusively an American citizen, it is inconceivable that the federal government would increase pressure on an ally to submit to a ceasefire desperately needed by a terrorist group responsible for the atrocity and desperate for a permanent end to a war.
It is no less than an act of appeasement. It is critical that Donald Trump lose the upcoming presidential election. But it is critical also that the war does not end in a manner which would facilitate the dismantling of the Jewish state and in a manner which boldly declares to terrorist groups and state actor that if an American citizen is mercilessly killed, we will accede to bend over backwards to see that they are mollified.
Mr. Goldberg and Mrs. Goldberg-Polin weren't prepared for the rapturous response they received at the Democratic convention. Nor is is likely they were prepared for the reaction of the Biden-Harris Administration to the discovery that their son was murdered. The "bring them home" chant directed not at the butchers of Hamas but at the Israeli government was a great feel-good moment, a television show with impeccable production qualities.
Of some controversy in the presidential race is Kamala Harris' shift the past few years on some important policy issues.
When CNN's Dana Bash chatted with Ms. Harris and her running mate on Thursday evening, she said "I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues" and asked "do you still want to ban fracking?"
The vice-president stated that she does not and in response to a follow-up question, maintained "in 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024 and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward.. I kept my word, and I will keep my word."
It is true that Harris stated in 2020- as a part of the presidential ticket- that she would not ban fracking. She had little choice because her superior, presidential nominee Joe Biden, had taken that position. However, in a CNN town hall in 2019, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Harris had remarked "There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
"
Fracking isn't the only issue on which Harris has flipped. In the Senate, she "co-sponsored a bill to ban combustion engine cars by 2040." However, according to her campaign manager, she "does not support an electric vehicle mandate." Senator Harris also co-sponsored Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill. Yet, "a campaign official told Politico it is no longer part of Harris' agenda."
A day before George Floyd was murdered in Los Angeles, Senator Harris in an interview, CNN has reported, "lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services." And in an interview shortly after the killing, she was asked about defunding the police and maintained "this whole movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities."
The Democratic presidential nominee has been accused, legitimately but not justifiably, of switching positions about a wall along the southern border. Three or four months after being sworn into the US Senate in 2017, the freshman tweeted "Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it." She posted on Facebook on Groundhog Day 2020 "as I said, Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer."
Now, a centerpiece of her campaign is her determination to secure passage of the bipartisan border deal, propelled by Republican senator James Lankford and others, which contained $650 million for maintaining and building additional wall. Stymied when Donald Trump told House Speaker Johnson not to bring the bill to the floor, the legislation contained elements which appealed to Democrats, who were both concerned for immigrants and that they'd be relentlessly attacked by Republicans for ignoring an "invasion" at the border if they did nothing legislatively.
Her campaign also has run an ad displaying at least images of the southern wall, overlaid with the messages "as a border state prosecutor" and "she prosecuted border gangs." That's a little disingenuous, the sort of thing American Jews of a certain age would term "chutzpah." However, neither this, nor ardent support of legislation containing a relatively small amount of wall funding coupled with provisions acceptable to many Democrats constitutes support for the wall.
It is, however, emblematic of the internal contradiction of the Harris' campaign. She once vigorously opposed the wall, enthusiastically supported the (failed) black lives matter movement, and supported a gun buyback program which would have exposed law enforcement officers to angry gun owners who would be mandated to hand over their assault weapon(s).. (The key is mandatory.)
And yet, when asked by Bash about her change of outlook on fracking, the vice president replied
Well, let's be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.
Which is not "clear." Lacking fluency in Kamalese, I cannot translate into English "we can do what we have accomplished thus far. Though it seems unnecessary to do what has already been accomplished, the assertion may make sense in some weird way.
Nonetheless, no remark in the interview garnered as much interest as "my values have not changed."
Prior to her experience as Vice President, Harris was district attorney of San Franciso, and later Attorney General and United States Senator representing the largest state in the union. She was a Democrat, one from California, and supporter of racial reparations. It is not a stretch to think that she holds those left-wing beliefs she expressed before she became beholden to presidential nominee Joe Biden in 2020.
If instead her views have changed as she wishes voters to believe, her values clearly have changed. If she still believes as she once did, her values have not changed, notwithstanding the much more moderate positions she now is taking. The irony is real, though subtle.
That suggests someone whose values are malleable, who holds to principles, values, and morals which can be compromised or cast aside when convenient. It is unlikely that Kamala Harris' values have substantially changed. It is more likely that those values were never, and are not now, very important to her. .
