The Democrats are attempting to divert attention from the interesting WikiLeaks revelations by claiming this is all Russian interference in our election, and that Russian hackers are behind this. Let us assume for the sake of this post that this is all true. I don’t like an unfriendly power attempting to interfere in our electoral process. However, there is an aspect of this situation that most people aren’t getting. Security is so lousy in the Obama administration and the Democrat party that Russian hackers have had a field day. I assume that they aren’t showing us the juiciest stuff, or the most damaging to our security, because they don’t want to reveal their methods. Stumbling into this happy hunting ground for enemy hackers, the candidate for the Democrat party, Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, insisted upon using unsecure civilian e-mail servers in order to protect her ongoing business of selling influence and access for cash through the Clinton Foundation and her speech giving “hubbie”. According to the FBI she was using these servers on the soil of unfriendly powers. The stupidity and obliviousness is shocking. That alone makes her unfit to be President, WikiLeaks revelations be hanged.
George Will despises Donald Trump and left the Republican Party after his nomination. However, he believes that Trump has a point about rigged elections:
GEORGE WILL: When Mr. Trump talks about it being rigged, he sweeps all his grievances into one big puddle. He talked about the media. He talked about the primaries. He talked about the polls. Talked about the Republican National Committee. I think when most persons hear that an election is rigged, they think of government action to rig the election. And there Mr. Trump has a point if he would just make it more clearly.
It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls, that is to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction. It’s hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against Voter I.D. laws. They say, well that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.
We know — we don’t surmise — we know that the 2010, ’12 and ’14 elections were rigged by the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government, the IRS. You can read all about it in Kim Strassel’s book Intimidation Game. She’s familiar to all Wall Street Journal readers and FOX viewers. This is not a surmise. I have talked to lawyers in a position to know they say it’s still going on. The IRS is still intolerantly delaying the granting of tax exempt to conservative advocacy groups to skew the persuasion of this campaign. Continue reading
Almost all pundits now assume that Donald Trump is beaten and his corpse of a campaign is already being picked over by media vultures. His recent polls have been dismal, with Clinton in some having up to a 12 point lead. Trump has been besieged with women coming forward to attest to at best boorish behavior, at worst to behavior that could have him facing sexual assault charges in some States. He apparently had no plan about what to do in regard to this, although he should have assumed that something like this, real or fake, would be thrown against him towards the end of the election. (Curious how none of the women came forward during the primaries. All purely coincidental I am sure.) His campaign has been amateurish. His ground game is non-existent. Some polls show him on the verge of losing such die hard Republican states as Arizona and Texas. He seems headed to a defeat of epic proportions. That may well happen in three weeks less a day. However, I am not convinced that events will certainly play out that way.
1. Trump is a brawler. He is not in this race to claim the title of good loser which seemed to be the goal of John McCain, for example, in 2008. He will keep slugging until after the last vote is counted. As in the duel above from Rob Roy, a skilled opponent against a brawler sometimes gets overconfident, and the brawler can seize the initiative in an instant.
2. Trump is slime. Trump is a sleazy guy, to put it charitably, one of endless reasons why I opposed him in the primaries, and why I long refused to support him. The King and Queen of Sleaze in American politics are of course Bill and Hillary. However, Trump is giving them a run for their crowns. Go here to read the Hillary expose from the Trump-supporting National Enquirer. When it comes to throwing filth, Trump is only beginning to fight.
3. Disparate polls. A strange dichotomy has arisen between live phone polls, and internet polls and polls that rely upon robo calls. Trump tends to do much better in the latter polls than in the former. For example, in the Rasmussen poll from yesterday Clinton is up one point over Trump. Go here to look at it. Today Rasmussen has it dead even. Go here to look at it. People’s Pundit Tracking Poll had Trump ahead by one point. Go here to view it. A Cvoter international poll yesterday showed Clinton up two points, although I have not found a link to the it. The Los Angeles Times Daily Tracker Poll has a unique methodology in that it polls the same 3000 people each day. It was the most accurate poll in 2012. Today it shows Trump and Clinton tied. Go here to look at it. In every election cycle there are outlier polls, but it is odd to have such a long lasting split as seen in this election. Is it possible that these polls are catching a hidden Trump vote that will not reveal itself to live pollsters? We will find out in the second Tuesday in November. Although I hate to mention him in the same breath as Trump, I would note that Gallup had Reagan down by eight points at the end of October in 1980 just prior to his one and only debate with Carter. Reagan went on to win by ten points. Polls are amusing, sometimes useful, but rarely should they be accepted as Sacred Writ. Continue reading
(Language advisory as to the tape: lots of swearing Democrats.) James O’Keefe at Project Veritas gives us the second part of his look at the thug black bag boys of the Democrat Party. Go here to look at the first video. This installment focuses on the Democrat tactic of getting illegal voters to the polls. Scott Foval, the national field director for Americans United For Change, seen on the video has been fired by his organization, the Democrats seeking to use him as a scapegoat, along with Bob Creamer, the convicted felon husband of Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, head of Democracy Partners, and a visitor to the Obama White House 342 times, who announced today that he was stepping down from working with the Clinton Campaign. This thing is starting to explode. O’Keefe is a master at this, and is worth a thousand of the usual worthless political consultants who drain funds in GOP races.
(Language advisory as to the tape: lots of swearing Democrats.) James O’Keefe at Project Veritas gives us further evidence that the Democrat Party is an organized criminal conspiracy:
The goal of “bird-dogging”: to create a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Often, the tactic uses the most vulnerable people — including the elderly and disabled — to maximize shock value.
O’Keefe’s extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer, a veteran Chicago activist and convicted felon who is thought to have planned Democrats’ political strategy during the push for Obamacare in 2009 and 2010.
Creamer is also the co-founder of Democracy Partners, a consulting group that, according to Project Veritas videos, apparently contracts directly with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and that works with an array of super PACs and consultants to organize, film and publicize their provocations.
Creamer affirms on one video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work, and that Democracy Partners has a daily telephone call with the Clinton campaign to coordinate efforts.
O’Keefe and his team also obtained hidden camera videos showing one of Creamer’s consultants, Scott Foval, describing “bird-dogging,” among other tactics, and taking credit for having instigated violence at several Republican events during the 2016 election cycle.
Foval — who praises Creamer as “diabolical” — explains how “bird-dogging” works: how they plan confrontations in advance, choose particular individuals to provoke, and maximize media coverage.
FOVAL: So one of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate. And then we get it on tape. And then, when our guys get beat up —
Project Veritas: You mean authentic-seeming grassroots?
FOVAL: No, authentic.
PV: You mean —
PV: So like — progressive, what we saw in Madison.
FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.
PV: So some of this, so I probably know your work.
FOVAL: I know you do. Everybody does. But —
PV: You mean like a situation where it’s sort of like a —
FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?
FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].
PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?
FOVAL: We scenarioed it.
PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back.
PV: That’s fucking brilliant. That’s brilliant.
FOVAL: And then the reporters had people to talk to.
Foval also tells Project Veritas’s undercover journalist that Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”
In another video, Foval admits that his organization is responsible for an incident in Asheville, North Carolina in September, where an elderly woman was allegedly assaulted outside a Trump rally.
In that incident, the 69-year-old woman, wearing an oxygen tank, heckled a visually impaired 73-year-old Trump supporter, then pursued him. She claimed he then punched her in the jaw, though she had no visible injury; his attorney claims she touched him on the shoulder first, and then fell to the ground as he turned around. The national media covered her claims widely, while largely ignoring his. Foval explains that the woman had been “trained” as a part of his operation.
Foval also explains how the operation is set up to allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign “plausible deniability” in the event that the true nature of the deliberate violence is discovered: “The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.”
He explains the flow of money in “rapid response” operations: “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.”
And Foval emphasizes that the goal of “bird-dogging” is to create a sense of “anarchy” around Trump: ”The bird-dogging. The aggressive bird-dogging. What I call it is ‘conflict engagement.’ … Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies? We’re starting anarchy. And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.” Continue reading
My friend Jay Anderson comes out temporarily from blogging retirement to note the recent history of Democrats atttempting to control the Catholic Church:
In case you’re wondering, the “middle ages dictatorship” that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton’s so-called “basket of deplorables”. And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by “plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution” against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.
Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago…
Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say “I told you so.”
Not a very pretty sentiment, but that’s about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.
So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse’s mouth (or, rather, out of the horse’s leaked emails). I haven’t the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years — beginning a decade ago — against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.
In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.
And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle — the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio — published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must’ve hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle’s website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle’s article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter’s publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.
In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions — such as the Church and other religious people and organizations — that might stand in that party’s way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec. “These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics,” some said. “These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a ‘consistent ethic of life’,” they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters’ allegedly “obsessive” focus on “a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality” (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church’s teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable “Catholic Vote” left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.
So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton’s current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a “Catholic Spring” (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the “Arab Spring” — albeit without the violence, one hopes — that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration’s new policy, together with “the 98%” create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them.
Just wondering . . .
Hoping you’re well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want.
Sandy Newman, President
Voices for Progress
Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)
If we had a real media in this country instead of shills for the Democrat party, Hillary would be getting about 20% of the vote.
Well, that is how the people at the top of the Clinton campaign view us. Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report brings us the news:
So yeah, the Clinton campaign picked Tim Kaine as the vice presidential nominee but a recently leaked email displays the animus and disdain which the campaign views conservative Catholics.
WikiLeaks released an email chain that included Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, Clinton campaign communications director Jen Palmieri, and Center for American Progress fellow John Halpin.
Ken Auletta’s latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.
Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.
Halpin also says of conservatism among Catholics:
It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.
Palmieri reportedly said that Catholicism is “the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion” and adds “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”
Podesta then chimes in saying,
Excellent point. They can throw around “Thomistic” thought and “subsidiarity” and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.
Yup. This is disgusting but it is how the Clinton campaign views Catholicism. And if you’re hoping the media will cover this in the way it deserves, think again. I’d bet it’ll hardly get a mention on MSM. Continue reading
The surreal campaign of 2016 continues with Al Gore joining Hillary on the campaign trail. This is an unusual development in light of the fact that Gore and Clinton have long cordially detested each other. However, when it comes to power Democrats are always able to swallow their bile and unite.
It does surprise me however due to Hillary’s shock and horror at what Donald Trump said back in 2005. I guess she is forgetting what Gore was accused of doing just a few years later:
Former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by new allegations of sexual assault. This time, it’s two more massage therapists bringing the charges.
The former VP is already in hot water, fighting abuse claims in Portland, where another masseuse said Gore groped her in ’06 and asked her to perform a “chakra release” (massage-speak for “hand job”.) He denies everything.
The new allegations are said to have taken place at two hotels – one in Beverly Hills in 2007, when Gore was in Hollywood for the Oscars, the other in Tokyo in 2008.
A source from the luxury hotel in Beverly Hills told The Enquirer: “The therapist claimed that when they were alone, Gore shrugged off a towel and stood naked in front of her.” He then propositioned her for a sexual act, according to The Enquirer.
Molly Hagerty, the Portland victim, has also recently piped up with some new evidence: a pair of stained black pants and the remains of some candy supposedly gobbled by Gore. Continue reading
If the mainstream media can tear themselves away from running endless loops of Donald Trump making a jackass out of himself on an eleven year old audio recording, they might want to look at this claim that Hillary Clinton has a seizure disorder:
Later in the segment, Cole caught a flash in the face as the rest of the PIX 11 team snapped picitures with disposable cameras.
“Whoa, God. This is why it was banned apparently,” Cole stated. “The Secret Service did not trust people to disable the flashes on they’re cameras, and they were afraid it would sort of inspire Hillary’s seizure disorder.” Continue reading
My personal favorite in the debate last night. Clinton’s attempt to invoke Lincoln deserved Trump’s comeback. It reminds me of the politician who said that his opponent reminded him of Abraham Lincoln, if one could imagine a short, fat, corrupt and lying Abe.
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has had probably the most acute analysis on this strange campaign this year. Here is his take on the debate:
I just watched the debate on replay. Trump won bigly. This one wasn’t close. And keep in mind that I called Clinton the winner of the first debate, and I now endorse Gary Johnson, primarily to avoid being called an alleged enabler of alleged sex abusers and their alleged enablers. That basket of deplorables includes both Bill and Hillary Clinton (the alleged doer and the alleged cleaner-upper) plus Trump and his alleged misdeeds.
Some quick reactions…
1. When the Access Hollywood tape came up, Trump dismissed it as locker room banter that he regrets. You expected that part. The persuasion move was that he quickly contrasted that “small” issue with images of ISIS beheadings, and cage-drownings. It was a high ground maneuver, a powerful visual anchor (like the Rosie O’Donnell move from his first primary debate), and a contrast play. In this framing, Trump cares about saving your life while Clinton cares about your choice of words. I realize the issue is Trump’s alleged deeds, not his words. But in terms of debate persuasion, Trump nailed it hard.
2. Clinton’s body language was defensive. Trump is physically larger and prowled the stage. He won the optics. It only got worse when a fly landed on Clinton’s face mid-answer. Both candidates looked perfect in terms of wardrobe and hair, given what they have to work with.
3. Trump threw in enough random details about Syria to persuade viewers that he knows more than they thought he knew. And he did a great job selling the idea that he knows more than the generals (as ridiculous as that sounds), at least in terms of not announcing where we plan to attack. I agree with the moderator who said there might be good reasons for announcing attacks – such as giving time for civilians to leave – but it wasn’t quite a counter-argument. Trump succeeded in looking informed on Syria, and at the same time reinforced the “can’t keep a secret” theme for Clinton.
4. Trump’s pre-debate show with Bill’s alleged victims dismantled Clinton’s pro-woman high ground before the debate even started. I didn’t see the pre-debate show, but I assume it was impactful. It had to be. Clinton looked shaken from the start.
5. The best quotable moments from the debate are pro-Trump. His comment about putting Clinton in jail has that marvelous visual persuasion quality about it, and it was the laugh of the night, which means it will be repeated endlessly. He also looked like he meant it.
Clinton’s Abe Lincoln defense for two-faced politicking failed as hard as anything can fail. Mrs. Clinton, I knew Abe Lincoln, and you’re no Abe Lincoln. You know that was in your head. Or it will be.
6. Most of the rest was policy stuff that no one understands or cares about. We don’t know how to fix Obamacare or what to do with TPP. But by acting competent on these and other policy issues, Trump gains more than Clinton in persuasion.
7. Trump attacked Clinton on emails, and did a good job. His base needed that.
8. Clinton had to defend her “deplorables” comment. She said she regretted it. Regret isn’t what the public wanted to hear. That’s about her. They wanted to hear that she doesn’t think that way. She failed to address the emotional part of that topic, and that’s a persuasion fail. Continue reading
Bill Clinton’s deposition on Monica Lewinsky. A good thing to remember when Hillary rants tonight about how outraged she is about what Trump said. Ah for the halcyon days of that Clinton’s presidency when parents had to shoo kids out of the room when the news came on, and when oral sex and the oval office became synonymous. Trump is a pig, but having these characters act morally outraged over Trump is truly nauseating.
The second debate between Trump and Clinton starts at 8:00 PM Central Time tonight, and for lovers of political theater it promises to be exceptional. Any other politician would be dead meat now but Donald Trump is not “any other politician.” He isn’t a politician at all, as he has demonstrated time and time again in this campaign. What began, I suspect, as a vanity ride for him, has turned into a political movement that has been consistently underestimated by his foes, including me. Well, I am done underestimating Donald Trump. Tonight promises to be an epic disaster for him, but I would not be surprised to see him throw away the political rulebook yet again and snatch a victory from a debacle. We shall see. For a political junkie like me, it does not get any better than this.
Update: Trump has just held a news conference featuring Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton. It looks like he is taking the nuclear option unless this is a pre-debate headfake.
Update: Trump thus far, a half hour into the debate, is bringing his A game in the debate: Calm, articulate and on the attack. He has won most of the exchanges with Hillary.
Update: An hour in Trump is more than holding his own. Clinton came into this debate over confident and Trump came in knowing that he couldn’t afford another loss. Frank Luntz’ focus group is showing that 17 think Trump is winning, 4 think Hillary is winning and 9 think it is a tie.
Update: I called the first debate for Clinton and I think Trump is just as clearly the victor in the second debate. A bravura performance considering the pressure Trump is under.
Update: From the Luntz focus group:
Focus Group: Who are you willing to vote for?
BEFORE #DEBATE • Hillary: 8 • Trump: 9
AFTER DEBATE • Hillary: 4 • Trump: 18
The most hilarious feature in the above video is the idea that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are sleeping together. Lots of political news, all of it unedifying. We have Trump from 2005 talking to Billy Bush, yes a scion of that Bush family, braying about his attempt to physically seduce a married woman. Trump is a pig about women? Who knew? Then we have hacks of Hillary’s three speeches to Goldman Sachs, for which she was paid $675,000 for slightly more than three hours of speechmaking, hitherto kept secret, back in 2013 where we learn, to our stupified amazement, that she says one thing in public and one thing in private as a matter of policy, and that she believes in utopian schemes, such as having a common market for North and South America powered by green energy.
Too much going on in the law mines today for me to do more than note all this in passing. This open thread is your opportunity to comment on the political scene. As usual, be concise, be charitable and, above all, be amusing!
As resolutely as most of the media attempts to ignore it, signs continue that there is something seriously wrong with Hillary’s health:
‘We love you, Hillary!’ an audience member shouted, giving her time to recompose herself. ‘Thank you!!’ Clinton replied.
She coughed once more and cleared her throat three additional times before she fully recovered.
At the end of her remarks, as she was headed for the exit, Breitbart News noted that Clinton had to reach out for her lead Secret Service agent’s arm and steady herself for a moment before she descended down the steps.
It was the second time this week Clinton lost the struggle to control her voice in public. Since developing pneumonia, she’s had coughing fits several times and observers have noticed strangeness about her gaze.