It’s Wednesday, September 28th, 2016…and if this is the amount of preparation…
…you gave one of the biggest debates since Lincoln met Douglas, should you really be surprised when your performance was subpar?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
Take heart, dear friends, ‘cuz it ain’t over ’til it’s over. And the fat lady…
…no, the other fat lady…
…ah,…fuggedaboutit! Point is, when it comes to this particular opera, she hasn’t even begun to warm up! Sure, Trump didn’t pound the last nail in Hillary’s double-wide coffin as many might have hoped. But as we noted Monday, he didn’t have to.
Consider this post-debacle poll from The Hill, hardly a bastion of Conservatism:
Next, a couple of observations to contemplate; first, Keith Koffler:
“Hillary Clinton may have won the debate on points. But this debate was not scored on points.
Clinton was obviously better prepared. Famed for his slash and burn approach to debates, Trump was actually a bit less aggressive than Hillary, allowing her to land more blows while he missed some golden opportunities to slide in the dagger. But therein lies the reason he won the debate.
For Trump, the goal of this debate was not to put points on the board. It was to erase the mainstream media caricature that he is an irrational lunatic who is not fit for the Oval Office.And in that, he succeeded. This debate was the incarnation of the old maxim: “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” And Trump played it like he belonged on the field — which was the main thing he needed to demonstrate.
For millions of Americans, particularly independents, whose main exposure to Trump as a politician has been via the snide condescension of the mainstream media, this was the chance to see if the cartoon reflected reality. It didn’t.
…With polls showing massive discontent with the direction of the country and anger at Washington and the status quo, this is emphatically a “change” election.And Trump, with his brash style and lack of political experience, represents nothing if not change.
But Americans are not reckless, and they need to feel comfortable that the change they select is not going to make things worse.Just because voters want change doesn’t mean they are seeking instability. And that’s why the main thing keeping Trump from trouncing Clinton has been concern about his volatile personality. So while pundits picked apart the details of the debate exchanges and gave Clinton the win, they missed the bigger point — that Trump’s performance was reassuring.
While Trump didn’t draw as much blood as he might have, he did draw blood where it counted, in ways that made him look like the candidate of change — and even the safer choice.
…But by holding back some of his fire, Trump also helped diminish the notion that he shoots from the hip and might be too trigger-happy as president. In a sense, Trump won by losing.“
Then there’s this from James Taranto, who is certainly no fan of The Donald’s:
“Hillary Clinton must’ve won the debate. Even Scott Adams, who over the weekend switched his endorsement to Donald Trump for reasons of policy, said she did last night:
Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. . . .
But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary.Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy.And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem.He looked safer.
By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.
Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish—being less scary—and he did it.
We’re not sure we agree that Mrs. Clinton “won” the debate, though our opinion here is worth the paper it’s printed on. Our sense was that Trump lost his focus after dominating the first 30 minutes or so—the only 30 minutes that matter, according to a predebate piece by Politico’s Shane Goldmacher. Mrs. Clinton was boring and irritating throughout. But it’s possible we are biased.
We certainly disagree that Trump “won the election” last night, which is to say our view is that not terrifying viewers of the first debate is an insufficient condition for victory. It is, however, a necessary condition. And Trump fulfilled another, related necessary condition last night, this time with the help of Mrs. Clinton and moderator Lester Holt: He established himself as a normal candidate…”
So he’s got that goin’ for him…
Here’s the juice: even the greatest counter-puncher in boxing history would have endured long and arduous training before a big bout; even more so were he preparing to fight for the world title. Trump has simply proved the same holds true for politicians.
And remember, Romney cleaned The Dear Misleader’s clock in the first 2012 debate…for all the good it did him.
Since we’re on the subject of the most anti-American President in history, writing at NRO, Andrew McCarthy details how…
So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.
Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”
She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.” Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one.If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And Hillary was right beside you holding the hammer!
“…For it would be hard to imagine a narrative playing better into the “law and order” theme Trump launched at the GOP convention than yet another racially motivated riot against the police, fed by persistently false rumors and outright lies from the “community” and irresponsible rhetoric from the federal government and the media.And it would be hard to imagine a better advertisement for how great America isn’t right now than the wave of anti-police violence that we are currently enduring.
The aftermath of the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, a man with convictions in multiple states including assault with a deadly weapon, and further arrests on numerous chargesincluding assault with intent to kill, has proven sadly predictable.The riots in Charlotte unfolded in the wake of a video live-streamed on Facebook by Scott’s daughter, who was not at the scene, who among other choice bits of eloquence, informed viewers that “they shot my motherf***in daddy four times for being black.”
…At a campaign rally yesterday, Hillary Clinton said, “There is still much we don’t know about what happened…but we do know that we have two more names to add to a list of African Americans killed by police officers in these encounters,” cleverly imputing, without directly saying so, that all of these deaths were unjustified. “It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable,” Clinton continued, before tossing off a few meaningless pro-police sentiments to give her some plausible deniability.
“Intolerable.” That’s an interesting choice of words.
Well, when I watch these videos of lawless rioting in my home state, with people shot, more than 20 police officers assaulted and hospitalized, windows smashed, and stores looted, that is intolerable.It’s intolerable, Hillary Clinton, that business owners of all races who have invested in Charlotte had their property destroyed by thugs and rioters…”
Most importantly, it’s intolerable that a movement built upon a complete and literal LIE…
…continues to receive unqualified support from the most prominent Progressive politician…
“If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad. That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine. WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7.
Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy. WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.
But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump.
Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1…”
In another item demonstrating the Dimocrats’ predilection for deliberate deception, again courtesy of NRO, David Harsanyi notes how…
“That anti-Islam video was bad, but this Trump guy really makes me want to go out and slaughter a few dozen people in a gay night club!”
“It’s one thing to watch liberals euphemize “Islamic terrorism” into a vacuous, politically correct word salad. It’s quite another to hear them blame free expression for Islamists’ actions.And they do it often. When Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump of giving “aid and comfort” to ISIS and other extremists because of his crude rhetoric about Muslim immigration, that’s exactly what she’s doing. And she’s not the only one.
For one thing, the idea that an average Muslim can be driven to purchase a pressure cooker and blow up Chelsea in Manhattan, or massacre infidel children, because a U.S. candidate says unkind things about Muslims, inadvertently concedes a terrible truth about the state of Islam today.
…The problem is that you’re an infidel, not that you’re a rude infidel…”
In a related item highlighting the true nature of the Religion of Pieces…
“A gunman shot dead Jordanian writer Nahed Hattar on Sunday outside the court where he was to stand trial on charges of contempt of religion after sharing on social media a caricature seen as insulting Islam, witnesses and state media said. The gunman was arrested at the scene, state news agency Petra said. A security source said he was a 39-year-old Muslim preacher in a mosque in the capital.
Hattar, a Christian and an anti-Islamist activist, was arrested last month after sharing on social media a caricature depicting a bearded man in heaven smoking in bed with women and asking God to bring him wine and clear his dishes…”
Keep in mind, dear ones, this occurred in Jordan…one of the most moderate Muslim countries.
To borrow a phrase from the immortal John Vernon as Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales, when it comes to the reality of Islam, puhLEASE….
Which brings us to The Lighter Side…
Finally, we’ll call it a day with one last item from Best of the Web entitled…
Have you ever been stuck on an airplane seated alongside a real pig? If so, here’s how it happened, as per the Los Angeles Times:
Turkeys, pigs and even roosters have flown the friendly skies, carried onto commercial planes by passengers who identified the critters as emotional support animals.
But a committee of airline representatives and disabled rights advocates has been meeting for months in Washington, D.C., to come up with new rules on what type of animals should be permitted on planes and what documents are required to prove the animals are needed…
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, among others, suggests limiting emotional support animals to dogs, cats and rabbits, while other organizations, including the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, would like to add birds to that list (but not chickens, ducks or turkeys).
Some advocacy groups say passengers shouldn’t be required to carry a letter from a mental health professional confirming the need for an animal because it would be stigmatizing.
So let’s see if we have this straight: Carrying a letter is stigmatizing. Carrying a duckisn’t stigmatizing.
Suddenly the concept of Donald Trump as President of the United States doesn’t seem so outlandish.