Subscription

Sunday, September 15, 2024

What Wasn't Said Spoke Louder Than What Was

 


Friends, my latest article is hot off the digital presses, and it's a doozy!  I upbraid Trump for all the opportunities he missed in the debate, which were numerous, and which may end up hurting his chances more than the unfortunate gaffes he actually made.  I also suggest that there is still time for the Trump-Vance campaign to correct these errors and get its messaging on track.


Losing By Omission


To be clear, there is little sign at this stage of the presidential race that Donald Trump is destined to lose. According to the polls and the betting markets, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach currently is that the outcome is a toss up. Nonetheless, there is no denying that the debates have hobbled Trump and have caused him to lose momentum, and, lest we forget, in such a close contest, every drop, every iota, of momentum is precious and could ultimately be determinative.

The first mistake Trump made vis-à-vis the debates was to announce that he would face off against Joe Biden “anytime, anywhere”. This forfeited Trump's leverage over the timing and the venue(s), needless to say, and led to an early debate on CNN that, while it yielded a Trump “win” over Biden, also facilitated a successful Democratic Party coup that ousted Biden, a weak candidate, and replaced him with, by most accounts, a younger and abler competitor. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, the big loser of the June debate was...Trump himself. And it need not have been so. Had Trump not given the coup plotters an opening, the Democrats would be saddled with Sleepy Joe to this day.

Because Trump had already agreed to debate his opponent, who was then Biden, on CNN and ABC, he was essentially boxed in and had to accept a September debate against Kamala Harris on ABC – a network whose documented hostility to Trump and Republicans made it highly unlikely that the questioning and moderation would be congenial. Quite predictably, it wasn't. Harris put forth a performance that exceeded expectations – especially those of Trumpers, Republicans, and conservatives – while Trump seemed defensive, repetitive, and poorly versed in policy and facts. Meanwhile, ABC's crack team did its best to kick Trump while he was down.

I would like to suggest, however, that Trump's biggest failures in the recent debate do not flow from what he said, or what Harris said in response. The most shocking and egregious fumbles that Trump made lie in what he didn't say, and in the golden opportunities that he missed. These omissions lead one to question whether Trump's political instincts are as sharp as they used to be.

First, in discussing abortion, Trump talked up the virtues of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the consequent empowerment of the states. That is a sound approach, but what Trump did not do was personalize the issue. Harris did: she made it clear that real women are suffering because of the abortion restrictions passed by Republicans at the state level. The natural retort, which Trump failed to make, is that real babies are being born, and actual human lives are being saved, by abortion restrictions as well. At the very least, Trump could have suggested that the issue is a complicated one and there are valid reasons – politically, constitutionally, morally, emotionally, religiously, etc. – to respect both sides.

Second, both candidates were asked a question about race and identity, which was a perfect opportunity to make their pitches to voters of color. Harris did so, and Trump did not. Obviously, one of Trump's most serious weaknesses as a candidate is that he is widely perceived to be a racist and a sexist. Indeed, Democrats, progressives, and so-called journalists have invested much time and energy in painting him as a bigot. Thus, when Trump has a chance to build bridges with minority and female voters, he should probably make the effort. He has plenty of potential ammunition: from the legions of minority and women voters who already support him, to the gains that people of color and women made during his first administration, to the fact that Democrats so often take these demographics for granted and do not genuinely care about their interests. Trump could have attempted to appeal to this massive and growing component of the electorate in countless ways. He didn't even try, which is political malpractice.

Third, Trump did not mention Kamala Harris's long period of self-isolation after her crowning as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, including her refusal to give press conferences or do one-on-one interviews. He didn't mention in any detail her record as a San Francisco District Attorney or as California's Attorney General, which could be used to peg her as a typical Bay Area leftist. He didn't allude to her steadfast support for Joe Biden, up to the moment that she stabbed him in the back and took his place as her party's standard-bearer. In short, Trump missed countless opportunities to attack Harris based on her record, her ideology, her trustworthiness, and other personal defects.

Fourth, Trump did not push back against hostile questioning regarding January 6th and his rejection of the results of the 2020 election by focusing instead on the Democrats' and the Biden Administration's sponsorship of censorship and their attempts to keep their political opponents off the ballot. Why not put Democrats on the defensive on the issue of “democracy” whenever possible? Trump did address lawfare and the “weaponization” of the justice system against him personally, but he might have driven home these points by underlining the close connections between the prosecutors who are targeting him and the White House, and he might also have pointed out to the American people that, if he, a candidate for president and a former president, can be a victim of lawfare, then they, as ordinary citizens, are arguably even more exposed to persecution and prosecution. In other words, no one is safe when the rule of law breaks down.

Lastly, there is a burning issue in American political life that admittedly no politician likes to talk about, but every educated and informed voter finds highly concerning: our deteriorating fiscal situation. With recent yearly deficits of $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is now way above the danger point of 100% – meaning that our $35 trillion debt exceeds our $27 trillion economy – America simply cannot afford to keep spending wildly, while also cutting taxes, which is the apparent preference of both Trump and Harris. Something has to give, and our president, or our future president, needs to be straight with us and lay out the sacrifices that will have to be made to restore our financial soundness and stability. Almost every Republican and conservative, and many independents, understand this, but Trump said nothing that might appease those voters who are concerned about nation's fiscal future. In fact, he showed no awareness of the problem.

Trump's errors and omissions in the recent debate were serious. For some people watching, they may even be disqualifying. Luckily, there are still two months left for Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and their many capable surrogates to address some of these gaping holes in Trump's messaging, and to reassure the American people that, on these critical issues, while the GOP may not have all the answers, it will not be altogether silent.


Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.

 

***

 

In other news, Trump was the intended victim of yet another assassination attempt today!  If some of these Trump haters learn better markmanship, and if these trends continue, Trump may not make it to November...  Of course, don't expect to learn much about the shooter from the federal authorities.  They'll be sure to paint him as a "lone wolf" and leave it at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rllnd1pypo 

Friday, September 13, 2024

Clash of the Titans


 

 

Friends, you must pardon my tardiness (really, you must!), for I have tarried in conveying to you this week's Newsmaker Show, on which so many of you rely for inspiration and ennoblement.  Your long wait is over!  Here is the show that was broadcast yesterday, Thursday, and which primarily analyzes the big debate and its likely political impact:

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v5ch55x/?pub=b4cbh 


***


In other news, Donald Trump is attacking Kamala Harris' record as the San Francisco District Attorney, which is smart, because tying Kamala in any way to the chaos -- or at least perceived chaos -- in her home state could go a long way to pegging her as a dangerous and radical leftist.  Why Trump didn't mention Kamala's California origins and record in the debate is a mystery.  What he did mention was rumors that migrants are eating pets, which the media has roundly condemned as false.  Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, but why not concentrate instead on the people who have been killed by migrants, since those incidents are rarely in dispute, and, arguably, killing people is slightly worse than kills ducks or kitty cats.  Depends on who you ask, of course.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/13/trump-lays-out-harriss-failures-as-san-francisco-district-attorney/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wp6q132p2o 


North Korea has released a picture of Kim Jong Un -- may his name be praised! -- at a uranium enrichment facility, presumably to underline that country's growing nuclear arsenal.  It is indeed impressive what a robust nuclear program North Korea has, and it makes one wonder how many bombs Iran has stashed away, as indeed I speculated on this week's Newsmaker Show.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9ypzq8qeo 

 

Finally, you know mankind's collapsing birth rate is a problem when China, which now has the world's largest economy, decides to increase its statutory retirement age.   The Chinese see the writing on the wall: generous retirement benefits for people arguably in what is now middle-age cannot be sustained, fiscally speaking.  One assumes that further increases in the Social Security eligibility age and the Medicare eligibility age are coming here too, although politicians may wait until either we have a depression, or genuine political pluralism has been extirpated, to act.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62421le4j6o 

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

A Lovefest It 'Tweren't

 


Friends, I would love to hear your take on the big debate tonight.  The Dems are ecstatic, because their candidate, Kamala Harris, looked like a legitimate contender for the presidency.  She had an answer for everything, and none of her answers were second-guessed by the moderators, for obvious reasons.  Trump, on the other hand, was Trump: love him or hate him, but your evaluation probably wasn't changed by what transpired in the debate.  My guess, for what it's worth, is that this debate won't alter the dynamics of the race all that much, and no part of it will prove tremendously memorable.  Harris cleared a bar and her supporters will breathe a sigh of relief.  Trump offered us what he always does: invective and self-congratulation.  The real question is: who had the advantage going into the debate, and did the debate change those dynamics even slightly?  What say YOU?


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/10/debate-night-livewire-donald-trump-kamala-harris-face-off-for-first-time/

Saturday, September 7, 2024

Joining the Dark Side

 


Friends, former Vice-President Dick Cheney, who not so long ago lefties compared to Darth Vader, has turned his back on the Republican Party's nominee for president, Donald Trump, and endorsed Kamala Harris!  Oh my!  Of course, Dick Cheney is the father of Liz Cheney, Trump hater extraordinaire, so this is not a complete shock.  Still, the realignment of establishment "conservative" forces in opposition to Trump has been impressive to behold.  It's January 6th that these nutjobs incessantly cite as disqualifying DJT from ever again seeking public office, but let's face it: if it wasn't the Capitol "insurrection", it would be something else.  If you get your news from you-know-where, there's no shortage of reasons to clutch your pearls and run for cover whenever Orange Man Bad appears.


https://www.npr.org/2024/09/07/nx-s1-5104718/dick-cheney-voting-kamala-harris-trump-election

 

Speaking of which, many business tycoons are endorsing Harris as well, although this isn't the big story that some are making it out to be.  Much of the corporate world has been in the Democratic camp for, well, ever.  The Democrats were never the champions of the little guy, as they claimed.  They always cultivated and received corporate backing.  Having said that, it will be interesting to see how many CEOs and corporate types support Harris this year, and how many, like Musk, drift right.  Above all, corporate America wants to back the winner, for very sensible reasons, and, given how close this race is, I fully expect most corporations to sit on the fence, or to play both sides of it.  What's your take?

 

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/09/07/political-realignment-88-big-business-leaders-endorse-kamala-harris/ 

Friday, September 6, 2024

Red Power!

 


Friends, in a fascinating development the lawfare crowd has backed down and conceded that Donald Trump will not be sentenced for the egregious crime of "falsifying business records" until after the election.  Ergo, they have more or less blown their last chance to incarcerate DJT before voters head to the polls.  What does this mean?  In simple terms, it means that Democrats have decided that, if they throw the book at Trump in the short term, or send him to jail, there is a distressingly large possibility that it would help him more than it would hurt him.  Not cool, from a lefty perspective.  What it most definitely does not mean, however, is that the campaign of lawfare is done or that Trump is off the hook.  If he wins, there is a real possibility that state-level legal harassment of Trump will increase, to make up for the federal lawfare that will, presumably, go away.  If Trump loses, there is a very good chance that New York and Georgia prosecutors will pursue DJT to the ends of the earth merely for spite.  These are interesting questions, to be sure -- especially if you're Trump and are facing the prospect of spending your sunset years behind bars -- but they're secondary to all relevant parties, including you and me, because this whole lawfare gambit was advanced in the first place as a political stratagem.  That is, prosecuting conservatives appeals to Democrats and progressives mainly because they think it can help them win elections and solidify their grip on power.  There is thus a chance, albeit a slim one, that the lefties will conclude, if Trump wins in November, that the creative application of the "justice" system to persecute their enemies and score political points is a losing proposition, and they will abandon it.  Wouldn't that be nice???  Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.


https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypr3vd7x9o

Wednesday, September 4, 2024

A Prince Among Men

 



Friends, I know many of you have posters of Ho Chi Minh plastered next to your bunk beds, and I can't say I blame you.  I mean, any guy who can kick the Great Satan's butt (that's you, you impudent Americans!) deserves our respect, and possibly our votes...  I suspect old Ho could win a race for Alderman in San Francisco with little trouble.  Be that as it may, on this week's Newsmaker Show, Brian and I reflect on the death of Ho Chi Minh and the surprisingly minimal effect this had on the conduct and trajectory of the Vietnam War.  We also consider the decline of television as a political medium.


In terms of current events, Brian and I consider the Left's loathing for men such as Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, and Vladimir Putin and the degree to which it is motivated by ideology, or even rationality.  We analyze the high stakes of the recent moves in Brazil and France, respectively, to crack down on Twitter/X and Telegram.  I argue that the future of pluralism and free speech on social media is on the line.  We ponder the blisteringly negative tack that campaigns for president have taken in recent cycles.  We ask whether the 2024 election has existential implications for American democracy.  Finally, we read the tea leaves re: the state of the race and Harris and Trump's prospects, and I know everyone is desperate to know how that will shake out...


https://wlea.net/newsmaker-september-4-2024-dr-nick-waddy/


***


In other news, the New York Post is echoing my sentiments regarding Musk, Twitter/X, and the fragile state of our free speech rights:


https://nypost.com/2024/09/03/opinion/brazils-pro-censorship-war-on-elon-musk-could-happen-in-america/


If you don't know what's happening at the New College of Florida, you should.  It's a test case for whether conservatives can purge a college or university of wokeness and get it back on track.


https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-difficult-work-of-academic-reform


Finally, I personally find it pretty silly when conservatives call Democrats and leftists "communists".  It's especially silly given how hazy most Americans seem to be on concepts like fascism and communism.  What are you thoughts?  Does the epithet fit?


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/04/donald-trump-on-calling-kamala-harris-a-communist-you-have-to-fight-fire-with-fire/

Sunday, September 1, 2024

The State of Play

 


Friends, no doubt you've heard a lot about how great things are going for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.  Why, they've practically got this thing in the bag!  Well...  My latest article analyzes the state of the race, and you might be surprised:


The Home Stretch


With the first opportunity to vote early just days away, the presidential election is about to move from mere theory to practical applications. That is to say, the main event, which Americans have so long anticipated, is almost here, and we will know all too soon whether Trump or Harris will be the 47th President of the United States.

There is no question that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have made the race far more competitive than, well, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did. Who would have thought that a simple game of musical chairs could achieve so much?

The Democrats and their media allies deserve ample credit for contriving to reintroduce Kamala, a singularly unpopular Vice-President, to the American people. She has been effectively shielded from controversy and criticism within a warm and fuzzy cocoon of positive press. She has been spared the agony of defining her policy positions, and instead has been gifted a vacuous idolization that focuses on her fundraising prowess, strong polls, and transcendent “joy”. On Thursday, Queen Kamala took time out from her royal duties to have a confab with one of her adoring pet reporters—doing no serious or long lasting injury to her campaign. Possibly this sit-down interview suggests a slight change of direction on her part, and a willingness to dabble in substance. In any case, the upshot of the carefully scripted, short on specifics Harris-Walz charm offensive of the last month or so is that the Democrats have pulled off a small miracle. In an age when public perceptions of leading politicians seem “baked in” and immovable, they have measurably improved the voters' perceptions of Kamala Harris, and given her an edge on Donald Trump in terms of “favorability” that could be decisive, if it holds.

Trump's problem is simple: the majority of Americans, and the majority of voters, don't like him. He is, therefore, highly unlikely to get 50% of the vote—considering that, even against Joe Biden, a much weaker candidate than Harris, he almost never did in any poll. Moreover, because Harris has improved her image and become an acceptable potential president to so many, she has consolidated almost all of the anti-Trump vote into a Harris-Walz vote. In other words, almost everyone who hates Trump is now prepared to vote for Harris, which is bad news indeed for any and all Trumpers. Joe Biden, by contrast, had dispirited the Democrats such that many of them were contemplating staying home, or voting for Kennedy, Stein, or West. The third party vote, according to polls, has shrunk immensely in the last month and a half: from 12.2% of the total to just 7% now, based on the RealClearPolitics averages. What Trump needs to do is (re)seed the electorate with doubts about Harris—to push just a few more of those newly-minted Harris supporters, temporarily infected with joy, back into despondency, and out of the electorate altogether, or into the arms of Kennedy, Stein, or West. It is by no means an impossible feat to accomplish, given the extraordinary constellation of factors that have flowed together to grant Harris this remarkable honeymoon period.

So what specifically can Trump do to upset the Harris-Walz apple cart? It won't be easy, because at least half the electorate, and possibly a bit more, still gets most of its information and analysis from a mainstream media that loathes Trump with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. Whatever attack lines Trump tries out—and Harris is certainly vulnerable on multiple fronts—will be ignored, or derided, by the press. Instead, Trump's best hope might be that Harris will simply fall victim to that iron law of political physics: what goes up must come down. Almost inevitably, as Harris stretches her legs on the campaign trail, does more interviews, sallies forth on the debate stage, and has to deal with breaking news and concrete policy dilemmas, her star will begin to fade. Trump and Trumpers have every reason to hope that, when it does, DJT can spring ahead in the battleground states, where already, even in the midst of springtime for Kamala, he appears to be tied. In short, political gravity alone may save Trump, regardless of what he says or does.

But, to increase the likelihood that Harris will start to bleed away support to the likes of “none of the above”, Kennedy, Stein, and West, we can suggest one ruse that might accelerate the process. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Cornel West, the Justice for All candidate, have both been seeking ballot access and media coverage, neither of which the political establishment and the mainstream media, both beholden to the Democratic Party, are inclined to grant. They have been fighting the good fight with very meager resources: both campaigns have only raised a little over $1 million. Smart Republicans understand that the success of the Harris-Walz campaign will almost certainly be in inverse proportion to the success of Stein and West, since they are competing, in many cases, for the same voters. Thus, smart Republicans have wished Stein and West well, which is fine, but they haven't put their money where their mouth is. It may be time to do so, since, quite frankly, a strategic investment in leftist lunacy could pay dividends that yet another check written out to Trump would not.

Political artifice such as this might make a real difference, but, if we're to be honest, this campaign, and the fate of our nation, is mostly in the hands of Kamala Harris, and secondarily in the hands of the handlers who handle Kamala Harris and tell her what to do. If she performs flawlessly and holds the anti-Trump coalition together all the way to November, she's very likely to be our next president. If, however, she stumbles in even the slightest way—and she's a natural bumbler, make no mistake, which is precisely why her campaign has her under lock and key—then Trump is likely to beat her. It really is that simple.

No pressure, Kamala! You got this, girl. Maybe. Maybe not.


Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.


And here it is at World Net Daily:


https://www.wnd.com/2024/09/its-bumbling-kamalas-race-to-lose/

 

***

 

In other news, the "far right" has scored some major wins in German state elections, and naturally the establishment and the media are aghast.  The mainstream parties are predictably ganging up on the AfD.  What else is new?  Seems like "our betters" only respect democratic outcomes when they suit them, huh?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn02w01xr2jo


Oregon is dialing back its decriminalization of drug possession and use.  I don't know how you feel, but I have grave doubts about whether throwing drug users in the clink is the best way to handle this admittedly serious societal problem.


https://abc7.com/post/oregon-law-rolling-back-drug-decriminalization-set-take-effect-make-possession-crime/15252804/


Lastly, Hvaldimir, the suspected Russian spy whale, has died, and I for one suspect foul play!!!  Could the Ukrainians be involved?  Rumors are flying that an elite CIA assassin -- code name JONAH -- may be behind this outrage, or possibly inside it.  Stay tuned.


https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cje2p3z8nlyo