Passivity

At the debate in Hofstra, Donald Grump whined that he could have been

extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, "I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate. It's not nice." But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They're untrue. And they're misrepresentations.

And I will tell you this, Lester: It's not nice. And I don't deserve that.

Afterward, however, he told Best Friend Forever Sean Hannity (at least until they're no longer any use to each other)

Well I didn’t want to say that her husband was in the room along with her daughter, who I think is a very nice young lady. And I didn’t want to say what I was going to say about what’s been going on in their life. So I decided not to say it. I thought it would be very disrespectful to Chelsea and maybe to the family. But she said very bad things about me.

His remarks to CNN's Dana Bash were much the same and

.... that he might bring up former President Bill Clinton's past marital indiscretions at the next debate.

"I'm very happy that I was able to hold back on the -- you know, on the indiscretions with respect to Bill Clinton, because I have a lot of respect for Chelsea Clinton and I just didn't want to say what I was going to say," he said.

"Which is," Bash asked.

"Which is I'll tell you maybe at the next debate. We'll see," Trump replied.







Trump's surrogates joined in, explicitly naming Bill Clinton as their likely target. Steve M. observes "The obvious conclusion is that Trump wants it both ways -- he wants praise for not Going There in the first debate, and he wants to Go There with a vengeance now. "

However, he argues

But maybe he really wanted to Go There on Monday night, except that once he was actually in Hillary Clinton's presence, he couldn't bring himself to do it. And now he's overcompensating by showing us what a big tough guy he could have been if he'd wanted to be.

Remember the trip to Mexico? Big tough guy spends a year telling us how awful Mexicans are, and how big and classy and beautiful his wall on the Mexican border is going to be, and how he's going to make those damn Mexicans pay for it. Then he actually arrives in Mexico, has a face-to-face meeting with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto...

Trump choked -- but immediately afterward, once he was safely back over the border and out of Peña Nieto's presence, then he became a tough guy again, delivering one of the most feral anti-immigrant speeches of his campaign, and asserting again that Mexico will pay for the wall.

This is not the only time Trump choked, and not the only time on immigration policy.  On August 16 of last year, the candidate met with Javier Palomerez, president and ceo of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, who remarked

The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions.

We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties.

Whatever he is, Trump is not hospitable and not a gentleman. It's hardly surprising they would disagree on "the wall" because, along with the illegitimacy of the Obama presidency, it is the basis of his candidacy, and both the GOP popular base and GOP donor base have always been more insistent upon keeping immigrants out than deporting ones who have come here illegally. It's just good politics.   More significantly, we agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people.

Trump was face-to-face with a guy whose two reasons for hating the notion of deportation of illegal immigrants can be found in the name of the organization he heads:  Hispanic and Chamber of Commerce.  And the big guy whiffed.

On at least two occasions, Trump demonstrated that when face-to-face with an adversary, he backs down, as Steve M. recognizes.  The only other plausible explanation for failure to confront Palomarez would be that Trump considers the wall mere red meat and has been conning all of us- except The New York Times editorial board and BuzzFeed- about it.

That would not be the good news liberals/progressives would consider it. A President Trump would have been elected by the conservatives among us, and he would repay them in meaningful ways.  Barack Obama will no longer be quite the GOP boogeyman, and he wouldn't be able to deport him back to Hawaii, anyway

That might be with a tax program even more favorable to the ultra-wealthy than he already has proposed, eliminating all food and environmental regulations as he has inferred, adding to the Supreme Court judges who believe discrimination in the name of Jesus is most godly, or even urging a Paul Ryan/Ayan Rand-dominated Congress to cut the minimum wage.

Donald Trump has trouble with confrontation.   This could make him an even more dangerous president than we can imagine as he allows Paul Ryan to dictate tax policy, Mike Pence to determine the future of Social Security and Medicare, or lays waste to most of the Middle East because he can't "win" face-to-face..








Share |

Sigh And Sniff

Congratulations, Donald Trump. You lost the first debate by demonstrating inferior ideas, knowledge, temperament, and logic, but not in one important aspect: media reaction.

The media could have reacted as it did to the first Bush-Gore debate of 2000, moderated by PBS' Jim Lehrer.  The New York Times last Sunday quoted Lehrer remarking

After the debate I walked out with my family, and one of my daughters said something I’ll never forget. She said, “Oh Dad, isn’t it something, what Gore did?” I stopped and said, “What do you mean?” Because as a rule, I only look at the candidate who is speaking. She said, “All that huffing and puffing and eyerolling and sighing.” I said, “My God, I didn’t know anything about it.” And she said, “Well, Dad, that’s going to be the lead of the debate stories.” And she was right. That night proved beyond any shadow of any doubt that body language is truly important in a presidential debate.

It shouldn't have.  Whatever the reaction of viewers to the Al Gore Sigh, most polls indicated that they believed Gore was more impressive than Bush in the debate, presumably because he had the knowledge of issues Bush lacked. These were not the Internet polls of today, when Trump supporters, as they clearly did, Monday night, voted repeatedly for their candidate, before legitimate polling found overwhelmingly that Clinton had  decidedly defeated her opponent.

Gore's advantage was not overwhelming but it was undisputed at that moment. Promptly, however, the media began talking about "all that huffing and puffing and eyerolling and sighing" Gore exhibited, notwithstanding the agreement there would be no reaction shots of the candidates.   Substance was ignored; affect and appearance prevailed.

Thus, in one sense Trump has prevailed. He was criticized because he was unprepared, offensive, rude, ignorant, and unashamed of it, the first three to an unprecedented degree. (Ronald Reagan was actually proud of his lack of knowledge.)  But he has largely escaped criticism- or even examination- of his debate style, so roundly critized of Al Gore.

This was reflected in response to the tweet "notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?"of former Democratic governor Howard Dean of Vermont.

Other than uncharacteristic silence from the Trump campaign, reaction was as expected.  CNN sniffed "Howard Dean claimed, with no evidence, that Donald Trump's sniffling at the debate could be due to cocaine use -- a comment that's being ripped as way out of bounds, even by those in his own party." It noted Obamite David Axelrod, unlike Dean not a fan of Mrs. Clinton, tweeted "I love @GovHowardDeanBut this is nuts."

Tuesday morning Dean explained

....he sniffs during the presentation, which is something that users do. He also has grandiosity, which is something that accompanies that problem. He has delusions. I'm not talking about being crazy, but for example, when he told everybody it was very smart not to pay taxes and then denied he said it, after he said it in front of 100 million people. It's not that he's delusionary about it; it's that he thinks somehow he's going to not get caught. That is delusional. He has trouble with pressured speech. He interrupted Hillary Clinton 29 times. He couldn't keep himself together.

He also is rarely inhibited and frequently agitated.  Trump also seems to have lost weight, common among cocaine users, but give him credit there, for he demands a slim body for many of his female employees.   "No  evidence at all," according to CNN.

Dean conceded "So, look, do I think at 70 years old he has a cocaine habit? Probably not" before adding "I think it would be interesting to ask him and see if he ever had a problem with that."

Don't hold your breath, Governor. Donald Trump is no Al Gore, and there is no liberal smear machine to compete with the right-wing media establishment.













Update: Dean has apologized. (That's what Democrats are expected to do.)



Share |

Not Even Close

You're taking it way too seriously, Mr. President.  Politico reports that when asked Wednesday about the San Francisco 49ers backup quarterback

“Sometimes out of these controversies, we start getting into a conversation, and I want everybody to listen to each other,” Obama said. “So I want Mr. Kaepernick and others who are on a knee, I want them to listen to the pain that that may cause somebody who, for example, had a spouse or a child who was killed in combat, and why it hurts them to see somebody not standing.”

The president added, however: “I also want people to think about the pain that he may be expressing about somebody who’s lost a loved one that they think was unfairly shot.”

Kaepernick has thought about such pain in taking the advice of a former colleague and Green Beret to kneel in respect rather than sit.  Additionally, his protest has nothing to do with the military.  "The draft is gone," Boomani Jones wrote a month ago, "but we’ve all been conscripted as unquestioning devotees whose gratitude can be demanded by anyone at any time. Kaepernick wasn’t addressing the military, but that was widely and predictably inferred."  (We're looking at you, Mr. President.)  He recognized

the most disingenous answers tend to come from those who defend his right to ignore the national anthem while making sure the world knows there were better ways for him to makehis point, while, of course, stopping short of addressing the point itself.

Yesterday, Obama asked people to contemplate pain, not issues. A month ago, Jones on ESPN's "Mike and Mike" explained

That's a dirty, historical trick with all this- that I didn't like the way you said it. It's very important for us to understand we asked him about not standing for the National Anthem... The statement was not in not standing for the Anthem. Not standing for the Anthem is actually a neutral act. Standing for the Anthem is a statement. That doesn't mean that not standing is necessarily a statement. The statement is in his words.







In print or on broadcast medium, Jones understood that sitting or kneeling for the National Anthem is not the revolutionary act supporters, critics, or- now- President Obama imply it is. So, too, does the man who does what he does better than anyone in the world. Noting that he himself will stand for the Anthem, Lebron James remarked

I'm all in favor of anyone, athlete or non-athlete, being able to express what they believe in a peaceful manner and that's exactly what Colin Kaepernick is doing and I respect that....  You have the right to voice your opinion, stand for your opinion and he's doing it in the most peaceful way I've ever seen someone do something.

Quiet dignity is not prized in today's culture, including in professional sports, and should be welcomed in the rare insances in which it's demonstrated. Whatever his views of racial justice or criminal justice, Colin Kaepernick is not grandstanding, strutting for the camera, or displaying a lack of respect for the military. President Obama probably knows all this, and he shouldn't pretend otherwise.








Share |

A Trump Obsession

Stereotypes are no good. They are to be avoided whenever possible: Hillary Clinton as man-hater and sexual enabler, Donald Trump as racist, xenophobic, and misogynist.

But it's possible for someone to foster a stereotype, whether intentionally or unintentionally.. At Monday night's debate, Mrs. Clinton noted

and one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman "Miss Piggy." Then he caled her "miss Housekeeping" because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.....

Her name is Alicia Machado.





Lester Holt tried to let Trump out, tried to pivot to a final question. However, the candidate would have none of it, interrupting Holt in order to ramble on about Rosie O'Donnell.

Appearing the next morning on Fox and Friends, Trump- without being prompted- stated

That person was a Miss Universe person, and she was the worst we ever had, the worst, the absolute worst.  She was the winner and, you know, she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem.

He added Clinton "went back into the years and she found this girl ... and talked about her like she was Mother Teresa, and it wasn’t quite that way, but that’s okay.”





One could almost hear Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway, who knew the character of the man she signed on to, nevertheless telling her client "Let it die, Donald, let it die..."

But that wasn't the only situation of its kind on Monday night.  Asked how we "fight" cyberattacks, the GOP nominee cited support for his candidacy from military officers and the union for the border patrol, then added

I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't -- maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?

Sometimes you stop in your tracks and go: huh?   This was not necessarily a crack about women- the 400-pounder may be a male- but neither Edward Snowden, nor the then-Bradley Manning was particularly overweight. Clearly, the stereotype of the computer nerd is not somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?





The simple explanation is that this man has something against people (other than himself) he considers overweight.   And as someone whose income tax returns are being (allegedly) audited for (allegedly) several years and has been a plaintiff or a defendant in approximately 3400 cases, he has put a target upon himself by choosing to run for President.  Victory- or defeat0 in November may have a great impact upon the legal issues swirling around him.

Trump's tendency in this campaign toward self-destructiveness could be critical in its outcome. What possesses him?







Share |

A Little More Information About Trump

The first presidential debate of the season may have gone a long way in answering two mysteries about Donald Trump.

Media Matters, created by "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader" David Brock, last month summarized five reasons Trump has not released his income taxes. They "could show," it noted, his ties to Russia, that he is not as wealtthy as he claims, has paid nothing in taxes some years or at least less than the Clintons, has committed tax fraud, is hiding offshore bank accounts, or is not contributing much to charity.

They might show also his wheeling and dealing with La Cosa Nostra. However, in a climate fostered by success of "The Sopranos," the coziness Trump previously enjoyed with organized crime of the Italian-American sort might be considered a virtue.

We now know with near-certainty, however, that at least one of the explanations cited by Media Matters, and mentioned by anyone looking at the matter, is valid.   Mrs. Clinton at Hofstra University stated that her opponent

owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax.

Trump could have accused his opponent of "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" or of having spoken "a damnable lie," or maybe asserted "I have paid federal income taxes, and quite a bit more of them." (For extra, disingenuous points, he could have added to the last remark "which has allowed me to understand what damage your plan to raise taxes would do to America.")

But he didn't. Instead, he spoke over Clinton and charged "That makes me smart."

Paying no income taxes might have been smart; admitting it was not.

That was not the only thing, however, we learned about Trump last night. We learned also how he captured the GOP presidential nomination.  MBC News reports

When asked by reporters after the event what he thought of moderator Lester Holt's performance, Trump said: "I felt he was fine."

But he then lamented having a "defective mic."

"My mic was defective within the room," Trump told reporters.

He added: "I wonder ... Was that on purpose? Was that on purpose?"






Trump was heard adequately through the television screen. Few if any viewers, projected to be roughly 100 million, had any trouble hearing or understanding what the candidate was saying. While it's tempting to say that his message and lack of ideas, not his microphone or voice, were the problems, Trump's concern over his microphone highlights the difference between this debate and the multitude of debates he participated in while winning the nomination.

Trump probably was worried that individuals in the arena did not hear him.   And although that audience was but a drop in the bucket compared to the 100-150 million people who will be voting for President, it is critical for this candidate. Through the primary season, he fed off the reaction of debate attendees as they cheered him and booed his opponents. That was his adrenaline, more effective than the cocaine some tweets (and Stephen Colbert) implied was at play on Monday. It also gave the home audience of Republican viewers the sense that this guy is not only making good points but is a credible candidate for President of the USA.

With audience reaction discouraged last night, Donald Trump was denied a major advantage. Attention was placed on his ideas and prior comments, implausible with a format that included many rivals. Those are his Achilles heels, focus upon which illuminates his extreme sensitivity, sometimes known as "political correctness."

At Hofstra, Donald Trump was chewed up and spit out.  Fortunately for him, the first debate rarely matters, as Presidents Kerry and Mondale could tell him.






Share |

And When Asked About Taxes, He Talked About ISIS.

There she goes again.   The debate spin of Trump co-campaign chairperson Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway included

Donald Trump is guilty of answering the question asked, and I thought Hillary Clinton last night wanted to make sure that no matter what was asked and what was answered, she was going to repeat back to us everything that she had learned in the last week or two weeks, and that’s fine.

In a masterfuly piece of passive-aggressive messaging, Conway says it's "fine" that Clinton "was going to repeat back to us everything that she had learned in the last week or two weeks."  The horror of studying issues! The disgrace of learning more about economics, foreign policy, and national security! Trump has asked for Barack Obama's college transcripts, but maybe we should see the transcripts of a guy who graduated from Fordham University and the esteemed Wharton School of Finance, yet is convinced the less he studies for a debate, the better.

More pertinent, though, is Conway's claim that her fellow "is guilty of answering the question asked." Even a cursory look, however, suggests that Trump instead merits a unanimous "not guilty" verdict on the charge of answering the questions posed at Monday night's presidential debate.

Asked "specifically how you would prevent homegrown attacks by American citizens, Mr. Trump," the nominee responded

Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. "We will take out ISIS." Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out -- what, they shouldn't have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.

So she talks about taking them out. She's been doing it a long time. She's been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn't have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn't have had them.

Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil -- ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil -- a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.

Trump stated how he believed ISIL was formed and, as he had previously, argued "we should have taken the oil." He didn't say even that we should do that now, nor suggest any plan to take on ISIL- let alone how we end, or defend against, a terrorist attack which might take place next month, next week, or an hour after the end of the debate.

Asked "so how do you heal the divide" on race, Trump replied

Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton doesn't want to use a couple of words, and that's law and order. And we need law and order. If we don't have it, we're not going to have a country.

And when I look at what's going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what's going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it's -- I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long -- we need law and order in our country.

I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just -- just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very -- I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.

We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in he'll because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.

In Chicago, they've had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I'm saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over -- almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.

Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn't be having it.

We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they're illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.

We have to be -- we have to know what we're doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.







Proudly claiming the mantle of the "law and order" candidate (as did the late George Wallace), securing the endorsement of the largest police union, and conducting more stop and frisk operations do not heal the racial divide.   Touting "law and order" (and blacks over a certain age know what that means) and stopping more young black (and white) men on city streets can have the opposite effect.

By contrast, Clinton maintained "we have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they're well prepared to use force only when necessary." The devil or God may be in the details she omitted, but the question was addressed, and cogently.

Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway has an extraordinarily difficult, and last night her client wasn't cogent. Or knowledgeable. Or composed, relaxed. Or polite. Or honest. Or generous in spirit. Or humble.  He was only one thing: Donald Trump.






Share |

Support Not Unanimous

Back in the old days, nearly two months ago, Donald Trump was to Ted Cruz a "pathological liar," a "narcissist," and "serial philanderer."

Today he is a supporter of Trump for President   Even before considering the “careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience," Cruz had been selling his e-mail list to the Trump campaign.

That appears to have been primarily for financial benefit, which may or may not have resulted from prayer and asking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Coupled with the extensive support that evangelicals have given Trump, it can (or at least should) discourage anyone who has believed that Christian conservatives have thrown their allegiance to the GOP only after prayerful consideration and divine inspiration.

We- to be interpreted loosely- have been fooled in the past, and may be again. Yet, at least one activist, a devout Prtoestant, committed conservative, and ardent forced-birth advocate, may actually be sincere.

Both a Never Trump and Never Hillary devotee, Erick Erickson, former editor of Red State, former member of the Macon, Ga. City Council, talk-show host and divinity student, participated on September 16 in a fascinating debate sponsored by National Religious Broadcasters pitting pro-Trump evangelicals against anti-Trump evangelicals.

Erickson believes Mrs. Clinton's candidacy "is fundamentally anathema to and in opposition to basic, historic American values," including "individual liberty as negative liberty" in which individuals woud benefit most "if government left them alone."  He fears a President Clinton's Supreme Court appointments would effect "a devastation of our social fabric."

He is wrong on all those counts, of course, but it seems that his religious values are equally important.   Having been begged by "so many pastors" and "so many others" to reconsider his decision not to endorse Trump, he responded in a column printed last Friday in The Washington Post. He perceives in the support of fellow Christian conservatives for Trump

a level of desperation causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God. And, in truth, I do not concede they are right, but have concluded we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump. The seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized past that never existed in a future that is not theirs, but God’s, to shape.

Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man who conquered death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in a kind of syncretism, trying to blend patriotism with Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

"I am not sure I have" ever asked God for forgiveness, Trump once admitted, "and I don't bring God into that picture" of right and wrong. Criticizing an evangelical supporter of Trump who once attacked the libertine Giuliani, Erickson notes

Even Giuliani never wrote a book bragging about his affairs with married women or boasting of taking advantage of others through strategic bankruptcy filings and shorting laborers. One can hardly escape the conclusion that had Giuliani been the nominee, Grudem would be chastising Christians for not wanting to vote for the man.

Scripture tells me (and you) that believers should have nothing to do with any person who holds himself out as a Christian and is unrepentant.

Trump strangely views communion as a plea for forgiveness and while he refuses to vote for Clinton, Erickson writes of the GOP candidate

I cannot in good conscience support anyone who bears the name of brother when he is unrepentant of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or swindler.

Here now is a man in Trump who sees no need to be saved and has no understanding of a faith he professes. And he sees Christians cheering him on in his rebellious state, defending him when they blasted others for the very same sins.

The whole purpose of shunning the unrepentant sinner is to drive him to God. Yet, Christians in America are cheering on this rebellious sinner providing him no reason at all to repent. All Christendom should be ashamed we are putting our needs in this temporary place ahead of saving a soul bound for eternity.






Ever the reformed Christian, Erickson fears Trump's

victory would have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America. We harm our witness by embracing the immoral, unrepentant strong man. We harm our American virtue by buying into the idea that one man can make America great again. Further, we risk losing Donald Trump’s soul for the sake of our selfishness.

When Samantha Bee in July asked various evangelical voters at the Western Conservative Summit about their support of the GOP nominee, one stated "As long as he's not murdering people or killing babies, I'm sure he's fine." Notwithstanding pressure from like-minded colleagues, however, one prominent evangelical has set the bar higher.

Share |