The VP Debate was Kind of Demure, Very Mindful

 

Moderator: Just to clarify, Springfield’s Haitian migrants have legal status

Vance: The rules were you guys weren't going to fact check pic.twitter.com/zo5W3i9HIt

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) October 2, 2024

That right there? Was the most contentious the VP debate practically became. Because JD Vance stewed that he got called on the one very Big Lie thing he contributed to, because he can't understand why it is terribly wrong, bad and hurtful, and why he really did need to be checked on that very particular thing. Because he can't accept that the death threats and the bomb threats and the disruption of a whole town's active life can be marked down to his propaganda. 

Is he naïve? Does he not get that there are real-world consequences that follow from such lies, and that people with a conscience would avoid them? 

This debate didn't clue me anymore in on who Vance is, but he does remind me, oleaginously, of those old margarine commercials--it's not nice to fool Mother Nature. 

They're Eating the Dogs! Debate me!

 

What a split screen. I mean. pic.twitter.com/pKW39fDfoh

— Annika Brockschmidt (@ardenthistorian) September 11, 2024

They are not eating the dogs. Putin is eating Trump's lunch. Kamala Harris is not Joe Biden, and every state has laws against infanticide. Trump's "concepts of a plan" are not a goddamn plan and he looked weak, delusional, unfocused, changed the subject and rambled like a lunatic, and demonstrated why 81 million people voted against him four years ago. Trumps history of racism was discussed. as was his weakness and lack of patriotism. 

Vice-President Harris had reasons to smile, to express pity for delusional old Trump mingled with the satisfaction of having a new crotchet of his to seize on with any given response. He was baited on his weakness, on people leaving his rallies, on his former staff having bad things to say about him--

And he rose, or should we say, sank, to each allusion. 

He messed up by showing up thinking his act was all he needed. The ABC team did a good job of fact-checking, which Trump fans will no doubt view as putting their thumbs on the scale. I guess my point about that is--why are the facts so stubbornly aligned against what Trump says, though?  That is certainly something you might want to consider!

Maybe Trump is just a pathetic liar. 

Running to Momma Fox's Skirts

 

Trump, who is not either weird (he says) so stop saying that, doesn't like that VP Harris has made an issue of his ducking the schedules ABC debate--but today, he has a solution! He will so debate, but because he is suing ABC he will do it on Fox News, in Pennsylvania (it's a "commonwealth", don't you know!) with a whole studio audience and no factchecking. 

That's nice, but we all know what's really going on here, right?

The Harris Campaign does:

He wants to be in his safe space. He wants a little help from his friends. His little fan club might think he just challenged her to a debate, but he wants something debate-adjacent. 

I truly don't think Trump anticipated that he would have to work this time.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Debate

 

In a statement that was positively BOLD in its chicken-shittedness (it's a word now--I have the best words!) the Trump campaign tried to back out of debated presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris because former President Barack Obama had not endorsed her yet. And, they wanted to imply, was not going to. Because obviously, Donald Trump is the foremost Democratic Party understander. 

So you will never guess what happened next. Go on. (OK, you probably already know.):

Earlier this week, Michelle and I called our friend @KamalaHarris. We told her we think she’ll make a fantastic President of the United States, and that she has our full support. At this critical moment for our country, we’re going to do everything we can to make sure she wins in… pic.twitter.com/0UIS0doIbA

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 26, 2024

Any surprises, there?

Not Much of a Debate

 

Disclaimer: I hate debates. They are a stupid formality that are somehow supposed to educate voters about the candidates--and they don't do that. The first (and possibly only?) 2024 presidential debate reflected everything I hate about debates, regardless of format. One candidate lied relentlessly, one candidate tried to talk policy, and the moderators were basically useless. No one is learning anything from it. It was brutal to watch, and I had the sound off and relied on closed caption because the sound of Trump's voice lying makes me a little irrational. 

That said, two huuuugge Trump lies got debunked right off the bat: the first being that Biden would be on some kind of uppers or super-soldier drugs, and the second being that the CNN moderators were out to tank Trump.  Biden seemed hoarse and a bit subdued. Tapper and Bash started off with inflation, and the debate somehow went 44 minutes before the convicted felon insurrectionist's weak point (being a convicted felon insurrectionist) came up. 

That was...inauspicious. 

Now, it is a lot to expect real-time fact checking against Trump's farrago of nonsense, but major howlers, like whether ANYONE supports post-birth abortion, probably begged for some pushback--but since the media barely tries to do that in interviews, why expect it? Even if it's literally an accusation of murder. Of course, there will be ample fact-checking stories to come--but you know who is going to read/or watch those?

That's right--people who are already pretty informed. Your uninformed voter probably tuned out the debate about 30 minutes in and is gone forever. 

Place Your Bets on the Debate, Folks....

 

There we go. https://t.co/2psm7b90gI

— Vixen Strangely (@VixenStrangely) June 25, 2024

When CNN's Kasie Hunt cut off Karoline Leavitt's rant about Jake Tapper, MAGAs got mad and former WH aide Alyssa Farrah Griffin said that Leavitt showed "poor message discipline."  But I don't think it's poor message discipline--"Everything is rigged against Trump" is the message, and she stayed on point. What she wanted to do was create a pretext for Trump to claim he can't get a fair shake (even though he agreed to the debate and the terms of the debate) and back out. Most indignantly!

Even if the real reason he's backing out is because he's a) losing it and b) a scared bitch. CNN, the whole network, has been long targeted as a Trump enemy--since before he took office!  His followers will not question his motives. They are accustomed to his bullshit and prefer it over being informed.

This is why they listen to bullshit artists like Steve Bannon and think people like Alex Jones or James O'Keefe III are free speech heroes. (Even if it sounds to me a bit like the defensiveness of a drunk being advised to switch to club soda...) 

Lara Trump Has Caveats

 

Color me skeptical these will actually happen.

“Lara Trump Insists the Debates Her Father-in-Law Agreed to Are Fixed” https://t.co/aQTJeya5R8

— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) May 16, 2024

Very much agree--Trump will back out, and no sooner did he agree to debates than TrumpWorld is trying to plan an "out" for him. First, he tries to manufacture a Fox debate that Biden "has" to agree to:

And then right-wing commentators run with the idea that for some reason, Dana Bash and Jake Tapper are basically the Symbionese Liberation Army. But anyway, I do have to agree with Lara Trump (whose face is starting to become wildly distracting, like a funeral announcement in comic sans) that things are rigged politically against her father-in-law (who installed a family member as the head of his party so he could hork up maximum legal bill payments) because he is so wildly inappropriate and unfit for any office. 

The Denialism Vortex

 

Just to refrain from linking to any of the stupid Twitter comments that got me to thinking about the denialism problem, I'm just going to link to Josh Marshall on the latest dumb thing the MAGA folks are doing: denying that the Ukraine war...is real.  Like somehow, Ukraine has snowed us all into thinking there's a war, and Russia is even playing along with this, and all of Europe and the US, etc. are somehow just pretending there's a war?

As if Wag the Dog were a documentary? It just doesn't seem plausible to me that this is being posited by anyone in good faith, but I don't think denialism is about that--although some people will buy it. It's about the debate. Exhausting, proof-pulling, stupid debate.

Think about how from stupid little acorns of bad faith, mighty conspiracist oaks grow--like with Andrew Wakefield's bad science that grew into the anti-vaxx movement that has since spawned actual terrorism threats.  Or people who can't accept any demonstration that the voter fraud that has them so furious never existed. Or think about climate science denialism and how people want to believe it's all a hoax started by people who want you to sit in a freezing room and eat bugs. (No, that's Brexit, dear....) And this "fake Ukraine War" canard seems like an outcropping of Russiagate--the denialism that Putin is a really bad guy who fucks with elections and has imperialist aims.

Dr. Oz Didn't Stumble When He Said This

 

Holy shit: Oz says his abortion position: should be between "a woman, her doctor, and local political leaders" #PASenDebate pic.twitter.com/UDiJvDYHYo

— Pat Dennis (@patdennis) October 26, 2022

I personally do not think my uterus is any place for a city council meeting, thanks! This wasn't a case of being inarticulate, this candidate is not in any way impaired, but he said this. Out loud where we all could hear.

Local political leaders, Dr. Oz says, belong in your personal business. Playing chicken with the reaper, with your mental or physical health on the line, with your future fertility and economic security on the line, your ability to take care of the children you may already have on the line, having a debate about something as personal to you as your own body and its future. Grandstanding for political points over your well-being. Appealing to local church leaders for future political support over your well-being. Appealing to right-wing donors, or even basic misogyny, over your well-being.

TWGB: You Know He Did--The Infection Edition

 

Mark Meadows is an absolute Trump loyalist, and if he says in his book that Trump had a positive Covid-19 test and then tested negative and decided to go ahead without quarantining to do a presidential debate and some fundraisers because why actually do the considerate and cautious thing? You know what? I believe that super-loyal Mark Meadows is telling the truth, and is dopey enough to think this makes Trump look like a real hard-working maverick who doesn't care a fig for his own health when there's a job to do.

Sure, a normal person might surmise that this is crazypants, and obviously it's irresponsible and Trump probably infected all kinds of people and endangered who knows how many others. It's the same kind of ignorant irresponsibility that led to 400,000 US deaths during his presidency, and a presidential campaign notable for actually killing some of its supporters, like Herman Cain. After all, the White House stayed a practical Covid-19 "hot spot" for a good while afterwards, even resulting in one WH official receiving amputations and a three month hospital stay, and an absurd number of Secret Service personnel also became sick during this time. 

But no one associated with the Trump White House is goddamn normal. After all, this is a world where VP Mike Pence had a whole flipping lynch mob set on him, and is to this day like, "Well, President Trump and I will never see eye to eye on this..." when, like HELLO! he was gonna be fine if you died! This is a world where Chris Christie wrote a book allegedly trying to separate himself from the Trump Era conspiracy theories and to some extent, Trump, and acknowledged that when he was in the hospital with Covid-19. Trump's major concern was whether Christie would blame getting sick on him. BUt you know, it's not like he's mad. 

So sure, the White House didn't have it in them to stop Trump doing what he wanted to do and it was fine and dandy with them if Trump and his family strolled in late to the debate without masks on the "honor system" and who knows? Maybe threatened to infect the Democratic candidate. So sure, Trump might have exposed Gold Star families to the virus quite knowingly as well, and even blamed his exposure on them. 

What kind of person even does this? (Republicans do this. This is what Republicans do, now. They do insurrections and spread COVID-19 everywhere. This is Trump's legacy.) 

Trump denies it of course, and called it "Fake News"--which is really just Trump's way of saying he doesn't like how it sounds and it doesn't match his lie. And this being Trump World, how does Mark Meadows respond? 

Newsmax anchor Rob Schmitt: "I believe the president said it's fake news. What's the story here?"

Mark Meadows: "Well, the president's right, it's fake news." pic.twitter.com/p2zkaT5Vw0

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) December 2, 2021

So there you have it, there is no good reason to read Mark Meadows' book because it is chock full of fake news.  Sure, some of it might be true, of course, but screw him. And Trump too, but with protection because who knows what you might catch off him. right?

The "Lincoln"/Biden Debate

 

Sarcasm might be a bit wasted on Trump, who lacks the kind of self-awareness needed to know when it's being used on him, but former VP Biden's referring to Trump as "Abraham Lincoln, here, is one of the most racist presidents we've had in modern history." It works because there's two amazing  things Trump does so constantly--compare himself to Abraham Lincoln, and claim that he's "the least racist person." And oh gracious, he is not the least racist at all. 

Trump has the odd impression that if he just says things many times, they will become true. Not that people will believe them because they have been repeated often, but that they will actually start somehow being true. And yet as has been (erroneously) ascribed to Lincoln: You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time. 

How many times does Trump get to say that China is paying the tariffs against products when that isn't how tariffs work? (They also haven't done anything to improve the trade deficit, which has only widened.) He lied about Obama wanting to meet with Kim Jong Un. He continues to use a weird, fake "2 million dead" number about COVID-19 deaths to congratulate himself on "saving" people from a hypothetical worst case scenario, instead of properly comparing his response to all the other countries actually existing right now. Trump lied an awful lot during this debate, and any kudos people want to give him for lying with a better "tone" are actually, well, stupid. 

Words mean things and facts matter, and Trump is in an entirely different reality from the country he's pretending to be president of. And when the Fox News President goes off on windmill cancer or spouts an unproven conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden, he doesn't make sense to people unfamiliar with that unique alternate fact universe. 

I think partially the sense some people got that his performance was not that bad is a) some people do speak fluent RW media wharrrrgarble and for them, his talking points, if not strictly factual, hit the right "notes" and b) Trump did manage to do something with his stunt earlier today in posting his "60 Minutes' interview with Leslie Stahl: he lowered expectations.  All he had to do was seem less cantankerous and whiny, more inclined to answer "hard questions", and he came out looking like he was on his best behavior! He even complimented Kristen Welker! (Who did do a fine job.) Wasn't Donny a good boy!

But he still would have had to do better than...this, for it to have actually helped him any in the election.  And I hope when "60 Minutes" does go to air the very awkward interview, the give him a good fact-checking. 

Sounds Like They Want Out

Our letter to the BDC (Biden Debate Commission) pic.twitter.com/ZsY5JfMbT7

— BillStepien (@BillStepien) October 19, 2020

Usually, a campaign that is behind in the polling would want another shot at a debate to show credibility and offer a comparison. And his campaign is apparently financially pinched, so, free publicity, right?

But this is TrumpWorld, and Trump blew the COVID-19 response so badly he is literally bad-mouthing Dr. Fauci at every turn because he can't take the blame (even though people generally trust Fauci, not Trump) that he'd rather not address it. And unless he can interrupt and menace, he doesn't have much else in the way of rhetorical flourishes. 

(There's also a real risk at this point that Trump stoops to a self-damaging low blow. I have some good ideas how low because he has been telegraphing them.) So Trump bashes the moderator ahead of time, and now the campaign produces this letter.

So this sounds to me for all the world like "If we can't get our way, we'll take our ball and leave." (And save some face.)

And like, "Ok, bye, then."  

UPDATE: And how do I know this for sure? And then it occurred to me, yeah. Trump wants to debate Joe Biden exclusively on foreign policy. That would be greeaaaaaatttt for him.

Who Do You Love?

 

One of the candidates in the 2020 Presidential race earlier on bragged about the US Marshals taking out a person sympathetic to antifa as if delighted about an extralegal assassination* (which is not at all what someone sworn to uphold the Constitution should do) and pretended during his "townhall" that he both did not know what QAnon is, but if they are anti-pedophile they are OK with him, even though he surely knows who they are  because he should have been informed that they are a terrorist threat.  (Or: He may not have been though, because we are lead to believe he might not always be briefed on stories that might make him very mad and rejects things he doesn't want to hear. So that's....not at all comforting.)

The other candidate was compared to Mr. Rogers by a Trump World surrogate, as if that was a bad thing. 

Somehow she misspelled "Mr. Rogers" and didn't realize that Mr. Rogers Neighborhood was, for at least my generation, a place where at least one grownup spoke to us like we meant something, who valued our feelings and wanted the best for us, and always talked to us with honesty and respect. Mr. Rogers always understood that little kids lives mattered. 

Dueling "townhalls" was way better than a debate, because the candidates didn't have to face off or interrupt each other or front their differences, but could be seen in the entirely different way they actually operate. Joe Biden can answer policy questions in depth and reassure us that he is capable of change and growth and wants to hear us out.  I don't know what Trump is, but I am reminded of King Kong (as Don McGahn, still crazy after all these years,* but still facing a subpoena one of these damn days, has called him). 

Whatever Trump's attributes, he is capable of terrible damage, and does not belong in the White House. He does not reassure people so much as terrify, and is unpredictable and without reason. 

The difference is very stark. Tell me who you love, and I will tell you what you are at this point, and I might even be especially mean about it. 

* But of course he did. Because ROFLCOPTERS and owning libs and being a fucking fascist is why. And his fans will clap because the rule of law is for some and not all. 

*Also Trump fans sometimes have caveats that they should probably give further examination to. In the full light of day and everything. 

Eyes, Lies and Flies

 I find debates a little unwatchable at best, and Mike Pence....I guess unsettles me in an uncanny valley kind of way. He lies differently than Trump does, but every bit as much. Trump lies in a grandiose way, a big way, an obviously false way, the lies of a large man who who can not even hope to contain how delighted he is in the sound of his own lying; Pence is the bland liar who does it automatically and with little thought with the falsity of a small bookkeeper who ultimately, through diligent peculations,  has made off with millions. 

Of course, Pence maintained absurd things, such as touting the absolute shutdown of travel from China (which didn't happen) and the aim to protect people with pre-existing conditions (which is belied by long-standing action), and the transparency of the president's medical team with respects to his condition--and he did it all while looking like he had pink eye.

That's a symptom of COVID-19. Maybe he just had a late night engaging in debate practice or whatever, but Twitter sure thought he looked paler and more pink-eyed than usual, like a sick laboratory rabbit. 

Anyway, he managed to be less of a bossy-butter-inner than Trump was during that debate, while Senator Harris did a fine job. But no one is going to recall a damn substantial thing from the debate because a fly landed on Pence's head. What attracted the insect to Pence in particular I suppose we can only guess at (and what fun we can have with it!) but imagine the disturbing landscape it was for the fly, navigating its six feet on that albino Astroturf. 

The Biden campaign response was so swift one could almost swear the little fellow was a plant.  But something so metaphorically correct must have been organic. 

But where the flies linger, can the buzzards be far behind?

Rudy Giuliani Repeats Himself

On Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani says Joe Biden "has dementia. There's no doubt about it. I've talked to doctors. ... The president's quite right to say maybe he's taken adderall." The hosts get visibly uncomfortable. pic.twitter.com/2Ma7DKNBpS

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) September 29, 2020

There's something very familiar about what Rudy Giuliani is doing here regarding former Vice-President Biden's mental health--because he was doing the same exact thing four years ago regarding Hillary Clinton. It's just as specious now as it was then, it's just as weird regarding setting expectations for Trump's debate now as it was then. (And FWIW, Giuliani himself looks like a damn shipwreck.)

Is it wishful thinking? It seems to me that Giuliani liked lying about Clinton in part because of resentment re: her winning what he figured should be his senate seat. And of course, it was from the supposedly not-so-nimble mind of Joe Biden that the withering "A noun, a verb, 9/11" came from. I'm sure Giuliani haaaaaates that. Anyway, in short, screw Rudy Giuliani, he's a sad liar.

This Debate Could Have Been Better With Seasoning

When you're in the room and mom and dad start arguing... #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/BFyRq3O0HM

— Jessy Han (@hjessy_) January 15, 2020

I know, you know, the world knows, the exchange above is going to be the topic after the Warren/Sanders build-up, right? But I have to say, I'm feeling for Steyer a bit here. "Oh hi guys, great debaaaaa...." Timing, right? I guess a mic probably has picked up what was said (and Steyer was right there) but I'm not reading a lot into the exchange. People aren't really the body language experts we think we are.

I think CNN had a problem with asking questions in a way that didn't sound a little loaded. Asking Bernie Sanders how he won't bankrupt the government wasn't just loaded, but actually doesn't really reflect how government debt works, and also doesn't reflect how things like health care provide a net benefit to society and reduce costs along the way. I'm not sure what would help them not be that way.

I think Warren and Klobuchar did especially well, and think that Warren pointing out that both of them were effective campaigners and also calling out the CNN moderators for the topics not handled were highlights.

I cannot believe, however, that after all my pissing and moaning about how crowded the stage used to be, that I'm now "pouring one out" for the folks not up there. But of such is life.

Being Fair to Biden

Joe Biden told an audience in New Hampshire he would consider naming a Republican as his running mate, if he's nominated, "but I can't think of one now." https://t.co/6aJWvi0zyH pic.twitter.com/1mCVFwzQbg

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 31, 2019

I've seen a lot of hand-wringing and umbrage about Biden suggesting that he might consider a Republican for a running mate, but I think you have to take it for what it is: he was asked a question that was framed in the context of "pulling out all the stops" and that it was proposed by the questioner's 21-year old kid. In that context he said he'd consider a Republican, but he couldn't think of one.

Couldn't think of one. It wasn't his proposal, he doesn't have a Republican in mind to run with, and he probably has no intention to do that at all; he just wasn't going to be dismissive of the whole concept, and is aware that for some people (and he seems to be one) the possibility of some kind of bipartisanship for some issues stays alive. (But not a damn Republican on the ticket!)

I don't personally think this country is at a place where bipartisanship is something I'm really optimistic about. If hit with the same question, myself, I'd be more inclined to say something like, "A Republican, you say? I just don't think that would work very well." What I think a lot of lefties were hoping for as a response is more along the lines of "Are you kidding me? Have you seen those Morlocks lately?"

But that wasn't what that questioner was hoping to hear, and that might not have resonated with that crowd. It's a question of responding with a message that matches the time and place. A politician just isn't able to always say exactly the thing you want them to say exactly when you think they should say it. But obviously, this is a non-issue--a hypothetical.

And yet, I'm literally grinding my teeth that some vapid doofus is going to bring this up at a future debate. Damn, politics are dumb.

I Still Hate Debates

I'm just going to run down my list of observations in no particular order, because, as I have pointed out endlessly--I hate these debates.

I don't know how the debate happened the night after the impeachment vote, but ok.

We've finally got the debate stage whittled down to seven people, and they had a scrolling background behind them so once again, busy and distracting.

Even if I like fewer people on the stage, yes, I think Booker and Castro should be up there, and don't get me started on Harris being out of the race.

Buttigieg getting thwacked by Klobuchar and Warren because he doesn't have the experience of some of the other people on that stage but has no problem getting donors was good.  I don't have a problem with millionaire donors, per se (like robbing banks, it's where the money is!) and don't believe that it makes a person de facto bought and paid for. But where is one going to judge? Looking at a candidate's record. Buttigieg doesn't really have much for us to go on in practice.

Although Sanders and Biden aren't very similar as candidates, I'm very comfortable that both of them are more qualified than Trump, especially on foreign policy.

Warren's quip about being the youngest woman sworn in was good. Also, we need more women in politics!

All debates are awful and mostly reinforce the opinions I already have about candidates, somewhat.

And we will be doing this a handful more times, so, woo-hoo? I'll get to see more of them, I guess.

Eh.

Debates are Bad and I Hate Them

I didn't watch the debate so much as I watched Twitter watch the debate, and even through those protective lenses, I felt like the stage was crowded and the debate was too long. It's starting to really bother me that the pool of contenders hasn't appreciably shrunk, and that Dems are kind of sniping about why their own favored candidate is really the best and the other candidates can eat dirt. So how many more of these are there? Eleventeen?

Feh.

That said, I feel like now would be a great time to start thinking about the total package--not what candidate is best on single issues, but who isn't just competent on domestic policy but foreign policy, because just taking a look at the world right now--oof! The next president will have quite a job of it.

In general, I think the field has people who would be great. But damn it, I don't think debates like this are a good way to judge.

(I already see a picture emerging. Not Gabbard. Not Yang. Sorry, not Steyer. And Mr. Bloomberg waiting in the wings because Warren spooks billionaires? Nobody is asking for you.)

So, Sometimes a Gun is Just a Cigar, Eh?

Fox News contributor Joey Jones tells Beto O'Rourke: "You couldn't take my girl and you haven't earned my respect, how are you going to take my guns?" pic.twitter.com/ImzV2LPh90

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) September 13, 2019

You know, I don't even think this is much of a secret--it's a whole advertising campaign, but Beto O'Rourke threatening to take folks' guns sure seems to have them big-mad.

The reaction doesn't so much feel like a case of people looking to defend themselves, so much as actually seeing their guns as extensions of themselves that also need to be defended, with threats of violence, if required. As if something very personal will be lost.

What witchcraft is that?


UPDATE: Apparently, this Cain dude has been a piece of work for a while.


UPDATE: Erick Erickson lends the theory ammunition: