Baltimore, Maryland August 7, 2015 - The Debates - the first ones, anyway - are over and the talking heads are doing their thing. I believe that some things jumped right out of the boob tube and into America's laps. Whether any of these things will still be striking a chord tomorrow at this time is quite ambiguous. Charles Krauthammer thought Donald Trump bombed, but the Drudge Report said instant poll results immediately after the debate ended said otherwise. A focus group of Republican Voters put together by the imitable Frank Luntz on Fox News revealed that the big winners were Ted Crews and Mike Huckabee. The same group of some 40 folks believed that Trump was a loser. Krauthammer and other pundits thought that Dr. Ben Carson did not shine until the end, but then he shone as bright as could be. He is a passionate man, a gifted man and, like Crews, a brilliant man. His closing remarks allowed all of those characteristics to shine forth. Because it is clear that this campaign will be long and passionate, as well as mean and vindictive, candidates who can stay the course and keep on message are never really out of it. For instance, even though Carly Fiorina was demoted to the "B" debate at 5 pm, she still drew good reviews and the respect of her fellow candidates. She, like Carson and candidates like Ohio Governor John Kasich, Florida Senator Marco 'Rubio, Former New York Governor George Pataki, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker seem to be well equipped to go the distance. Jeb Bush is also in that group, and he has the added advantage of a campaign war chest that is already overflowing. Four years ago Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator, remained in the GOP race against a well-heeled Mitt Romney even though he was all but broke. He is still broke but still running. He, too, will not go away.
One part or fact of the evening that angered me was the way that the three Fox panelists conducted the debate. Fifteen years ago their hard-edged anti-candidate questions would have drawn praise from anyone who appreciated the objectivity of their approach. But things have changed greatly since then, and not for the better. Fox News has leaped to the top of the TV News World because they treat the right with respect while always remembering that much of America watches their coverage of world and national events because they do not bootlick the Left. That separates it from the three "old" network news organizations, and the print journalists at most American newspapers. Tonight, three journalists who I greatly respect - Megan Kelly, Brett Baier and Chris Wallace - acted like they wanted to earn praise from the rest of the mainstream media that were forced to watch the night's events. Every single question began be boring in on the candidate to whom it was directed. Why? Anyone who pays even a little bit of attention already knew the weaknesses that the questions dutifully recited. A question to Gov. Walker did not merely inquire about his abortion views, it recited that he is generally against all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, then asked how he could justify such views. If Ms. Kelly was going to ask the Democratic hopefuls the same kind of questions, her question to Walker would have been all well and good, but there is absolutely no chance that she will get such a chance. Blabbermouth Shultz announced this week that the Democrats would hold a series of debates beginning in October. Wait until the panelists are selected for those debates, or, if you wish, wait until the first debate amongst those folk. The panelists will never in a million years ask Hilary a question that is premised with an incisive remark about some specific pecadillo of the Democratic Royalist. Instead, you can almost imagine that type of softball questions coming her way.
Instead of "Mrs. Clinton, you headed a squad of operatives who contacted women who threatened to go public with allegations of improprieties by your husband, the former president. History tells us that the goal of such contacts was to brow-beat these women into keeping their stories out of the public domain. How do such threats square with your claim to be a "champion" of women everywhere?" Viewers of such debates will hear, "Mrs. Clinton, the GOP candidates are, as a group, profoundly anti-women. How will you deal with such intransigence by your opponents?"
Fairness, I believe, required that Megan Kelly and the rest of the panel to conduct themselves in a way that acknowledged that the other party's candidates will never be subjected to the kind of brutal vetting they were treated to last night. For years, many in the GOP have wondered aloud why their candidates continue to subject themselves to the abusive questions they were subjected to when panelists were culled from the mainstream media. The outrageous behavior of TV reporter Candy Crowley, during a debate between Romney and Barack Obama, is still talked about. As I write this post, radio commentators in the early morning (Eastern Daylight Time) say that the Fox panel went way too far. Some have called for Ms. Kelly's termination. Like I say, 15 years ago the panel would've been uniformly praised. Blabbermouth Shultz, in fact, praised Ms. Kelly after the debate for her tough questions. But were the shoe on the other foot, it is a given that Blabbermouth's comments would not be called "praise." And the truth is, neither Ms. Kelly, Mr. Baier, Mr. Wallace, or anyone like them, will ever get a chance to serve on a Democratic Debate panel. Instead, those panelists will likely be pulled from The View or MSNBC, and one has to think ole George Stephanopoulos is also a likely selectee.
Which candidates stood out? In the first debate, Ms. Fiorina and Governor Jindal of Louisiana were outstanding. In the prime time event, Senator Crews was right on his game, handling deftly the allegation - during a question - that his inability to get along with Congressional leaders is evidence of problems to come should he be president. He promised to always tell the truth, even when it is painful to hear and to say. Gov.
Huckabee seemed totally at ease, also handling every question confidently and with answers packed with elegant commentaries about shortcomings amongst the Democrats. In his closing he made a comment that seemed to be a criticism of Mr. Trump, until he concluded his remark by telling the raucous audience at the Quicken Loan Center that he was speaking about Hilary. As mentioned above, Dr. Carson was also impressive. Marco Rubio showed his stuff, too. His weakness, at least with conservatives, is his immigration record. When a controversial immigration bill was before Congress, he joined an infamous "Gang of Eight" that sought to shepard the measure through the United States Senate. It was a mistake because most Republicans wanted nothing to do with the bill because most Americans want nothing to do with amnesty. Rubio has been trying to live this error down ever since. But he is a wonderful and honest man, a fine and maturing leader and would be, I strongly believe, an outstanding President. During his brief minutes on camera during the debate, he made his mark, showing a sure command on all of the issues, and a sure and strong presence that will serve him well should he gain the high office. I thought all of the candidates in the prime time debate came across well. I'm not a Rand Paul fan because of his very strong isolationist tendencies. Even with him, however, the prospects of him as President appeals to me a whole lot more than a Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley presidency. Hilary should not even be a candidate. She is particularly ill equipped for the office, what with her penchant for telling bald faced lies, her fear of speaking publicly, her penchant for back room business, her failure to confront her broken family situation, and her abhorent behavior during the Benghazi Massacre. She knew in advance of the Al Qaeda attack on the United States Consulate that our personnel, including our ambassador, were in profound danger. But instead of doing the correct thing, she towed the line on the Obama administration's public front of having crippled the terrorist group when it "took out" Osama bin Laden. On the night of the attack, she was fully briefed on the extreme danger that American personnel were in, but again she did nothing. Instead of acting, she called or was called from the White House, speaking with Obama. In that conversation Hilary and Obama agreed or finalized to go with the ruse that the attack was caused by reaction to some obscure You Tube Video that had less than 100 hits prior to the September attack.
Clinton and Obama stuck to this ludicrous story for weeks, even, disgracefully, using it when the two of them met with the families of the four dead Americans at Andrews Air Force Base as the bodies were unloaded from the airplane that carried the bodies from Libya. Hilary was quoted as telling one grieving family member that she promised to bring the person who made the video to justice. Justice? For making a video about Mohammed? What about the First Amendment? Believe it or not, the Obama administration dispatched law enforcement to arrest the film maker on some unrelated charge, then sat back as the destitute man sat in jail for months awaiting trial.
Enough about Hilary. She is losing, rapidly, her title as Democratic front-runner to Bernie "the Proud Socialist" Sanders. I hope and pray that our nation hasn't gone down the toilet so far that someone like Sanders can get elected.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment