Posts

Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night’s debate was a reflection of the Kim Kardashian culture and the fake two-party system that has destroyed our Constitution.

There were sharp rhetorical barbs tossed at one another in this reality TV show, but over what exactly did they debate? Where was the major point of contention on the actual issues that matter?

For all of the talk about how this election is so new, exciting, and consequential, this debate merely reflected a typical day in Washington. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) toss rhetorical barbs at one another every day, but they fundamentally agree on so many issues. They engage in confrontation just to entertain the political class with a fake WWE-style bout.

Many of us have been pining for years to watch a general election debate in which the GOP candidate would deracinate the entire premise of socialism and pin the high cost of living, loss of jobs, and lethargic growth on the Democrats’ liberal policies. Yet, the beginning of the first presidential debate was an astounding display of “me too” socialism whereby Trump made his entire plan for economic growth centered around protectionism. Even if one subscribes to some degree of protectionism, the notion that this is a proactive tool for growth is absurd. Trump didn’t pitch his tax plan until Hillary brought it up and when she did, Trump spent more time focusing on “preventing” companies from leaving the country — whatever that means.

Trump got back on message for a few minutes when he finally defended his tax plan and spoke about onerous regulations. But fundamentally, the economic side of this debate sounded more one-sided than any presidential debate in memory, and that includes the debates with liberals like John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) and Bob Dole. It was further astounding that Trump did not mention the 800-pound gorilla on fiscal policy —Obamacare —a single time. Then again, for someone who loves expansion of Medicaid, it’s hard to articulate what exactly is wrong with Obama’s signature legislation.

The most disappointing part of the debate was when Trump enthusiastically agreed with Hillary on universal child care and maternity leave. Trump uttered a line that embodies the pale-pastel nature of the oligarchy since 1988. He asserted that while he agrees with Hillary’s program, they “probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts.”

Freeze frame right there.

This is the perfect summation of the GOP since 1988, excepting for the brief aberration of the 1995 House Republicans. They agree with whatever Democrats are doing at any given time, albeit disagree over the numbers and amounts. Trump should have retorted by listing all of the Democrat policies that make it impossible for women to stay home with their children if they choose to do so because the cost of living through socialism forces both parents to work every year of their lives. Of the 14 winning issues we’ve outlined, he barely touched on a few of them and none of them in a meaningful way.

Somehow Donald Trump managed to (finally) hit Hillary on the debt, but never explained how he will end deficit spending given that he will not repeal a single program, will continue to add programs, and sign a massive stimulus bill on infrastructure projects, an idea that should be pursued by state governments.

When Hillary asserted that Trump referred to global warming as a hoax, instead of embracing the opportunity to discuss how this hoax is decimating the economy in swing states, he retreated by denying he ever said it. I think we all remember a candidate in the primary who would have relished a debate over global warming.

And while fiscal conservatism was dead in this debate, social conservatism — even social libertarianism, private property rights, religious liberty, and inalienable rights — never made an appearance.

But most of the debate wasn’t about issues — liberal or otherwise. To debate moderator Lester Holt’s credit, he let the candidates banter back and forth for most of the debate — you might even call it a debate for once. But that is the point. Given the nature of these two candidates — a tired, old Great Society culture warrior at one podium and her donor at the other — the meat of the debate was about personality. At the beginning, it was Trump’s personality who knocked Hillary off her game, but over time Hillary engaged in jujitsu by leading Trump into his own rabbit holes and in a defensive posture about his personal life and prior statements.

We already know Trump is a social and fiscal liberal on many issues, but the one saving grace has long been his strong views on immigration and national security. Yet, when given a fast-ball up the plate to talk about his solution to homegrown terror, Trump didn’t mention immigration or the Muslim Brotherhood once or body slam Hillary for increasing refugees by 550 percent. Rather, he went off on a tangent about NATO, got caught on his past statements on Iraq, and was ensnared in a lengthy discussion about birtherism.

When Hillary brought up the issue of gun control and the terror watch list, Trump could have destroyed her on bringing in assault people while foolishly focusing on the inanimate object. He could have exposed her hypocrisy of confiscating guns from innocent people on the list (a prominent journalist wound up on the list) while vigorously clamoring to let violent gun felons out of jail. He could have demonstrated how Hillary wants to go after guns without due process but opposes stripping individuals of citizenship after being convicted through due process of joining a terror group. Instead, he chose the age-old milquetoast GOP approach, the same strategy he employs on so many fiscal issues; he “strongly” agreed with Hillary, thereby throwing the NRA under the bus.

The one area of strength for Trump, however, was the discussion on law and order and how Hillary’s pro criminal policies will hurt inner cities. Trump was also on message when discussing Hillary’s failures in the Middle East, but that line of attack was overshadowed when he got trapped in his past statements on Iraq and his support for the Libya intervention. Furthermore, his answer to the question on nuclear weapons and North Korea was literally incomprehensible…as in weapons-grade stupid.

I couldn’t help but reflect with sorrow of how 52 years after Phyllis Schlafly called for “a choice, not an echo” in our political system. Today, we still hear the faint echo on policy from Republicans — yes, even this new and exciting one — drowned out by the raucous noise of the personal insults. When you strip away the WWE smack-down, there is no choice there.

For those who still desire to beat Hillary at all costs, I don’t blame you. But don’t kid yourselves: if Trump wins on November 8, the work would have only begun. We will have his incoherent luggage piled on top of the existing GOP establishment, which is more empowered than ever before. Blindly cheering everything we fought against for years – without immediately charting a new path for conservatism – won’t end well.

Until Americans return to the values that made this country great in the first place and seize the monopoly away from the oligarchy, we will continue to get the same failed leadership and the same indistinguishable choices every four years. And we deserve it. (For more from the author of “Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Times Lester Holt Came to Hillary’s Rescue in Debate Number 1

/0 Comments/in , /by

Monday night’s debate confirmed several presidential debate truisms. For example, substantive discussions of the issues tend to dissolve during these debates. That happened at Hofstra University.

Another tried and true fact of presidential debates is the mainstream media moderator will act as a praetorian guard for the Democrat. And yes, that too happened.

Debate moderator Lester Holt repeatedly challenged statements from Republican candidate Donald Trump while permitting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to slip away. The questions he asked, at times, were also completely irrelevant to the issues facing American citizens, and contributed to the lack of substance in the candidates’ policy stances.

Let’s go over just five quick points to demonstrate Holt’s biased performance.

1) The NBC News anchor interrupted Trump twice on a question on jobs.

The question was, “How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheap labor overseas?”

Trump suggested renegotiating trade deals like NAFTA and was explaining the different tax systems in the U.S. and Mexico when Holt interrupted to ask the question again that Trump had just answered. Perhaps his answer wasn’t satisfactory, but that’s a point the other candidate — not the moderator — should make.

2) Holt dragged Trump’s tax returns into a discussion on tax policy.

“Mr. Trump, we’re talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to …who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?”

Whether or not Donald Trump could or should release his tax returns has absolutely no bearing on the tax policies the next president will enact in office. And in the context of “American prosperity,” which was the nominal topic of this segment of the debate, it was a completely irrelevant point.

Consider that the previous question asked Hillary Clinton to spend two minutes defending raising taxes on the wealthy and Trump to spend the same amount of time defending his plan for tax cuts. Instead of digging deeper into these policy ideas and their effects on the pocketbooks of American families, we were treated to Hillary Clinton asserting Donald Trump may not be as rich as he says he is, and Trump reciting how much his real estate/buildings are worth.

3) Holt brought up the constitutionality of “stop and frisk”; he forgot to do so regarding the due process rights of Americans on the terror watch list.

In the segment on “America’s direction,” Lester Holt began a discussion on race in which both major party candidates agreed that some form of gun control was necessary to curb violence in America’s inner-cities.

As Clinton herself said: “We finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country.” If the moderator is going to challenge the candidates on some political points, this would’ve been a great time to point out the due process rights of American citizens that are threatened by banning individuals on an arbitrary government list from purchasing firearms.

Instead of a follow-up on that point, Lester Holt decided to follow up on Trump on his advocacy for a possible nationwide “stop and frisk” policy — noting that a judge in New York ruled that policy unconstitutional. Constitutional questions are crucial, but shouldn’t the moderator serve them to both sides?

4) Speaking of forgetting issues, where were the questions on the Clinton Foundation’s incestuous relationship to the Clinton State Department? What about Benghazi? Or Hillary’s email server?

When the topic turned to “America’s security,” Lester Holt asked each candidate to describe how they would protect America from cyber warfare by foreign agents like the those that are believed to have hacked the Democratic National Committee.

Unbelievably, Lester Holt did not ask Hillary Clinton about her mishandling of classified information on a private email server, despite the fact that experts have said Clinton’s private email server was likely hacked. Further, not a single question directed to Hillary Clinton regarding her multiple grievous lies.

5) Questions directed to Trump were about personality, not policy.

“Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?”

“Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn’t have, quote, “a presidential look.” She’s standing here right now. What did you mean by that?”

If the candidates want to have a back and forth over who is more sexist/racist/intolerant/bigoted/what-have-you, that’s the candidates’ prerogative. Should the moderator of a presidential debate, whose job is to make these two individuals running for president give the American people an idea of what they will do in office, do their work for them? (For more from the author of “5 Times Lester Holt Came to Hillary’s Rescue in Debate Number 1” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Miller: Murkowski Trying To Rig Debate Schedule

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Anchorage, Alaska. September 26, 2016 — U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller called out Lisa Murkowski on Monday following the release of her “debate” schedule, saying she is hiding from the people of Alaska and the media.

Murkowski stated that she plans to participate in four debates in the lead up to the election: Oct. 12 – Senate Fisheries Debate, hosted by Kodiak Chamber of Commerce; Oct. 21 – Alaska Federation of Natives’ Candidate Forum in Fairbanks; Oct. 26 – Senate Debate on the Arctic, hosted by Iñuit Arctic Business Alliance (IABA) in Barrow; Nov. 3 – Debate for the State, hosted by Alaska Public Media in Anchorage.

Only one of those debates will be televised statewide, the Public Television debate, which takes place just five days before the election, well after early voting and absentee ballot voting are underway.

“There she goes again, trying to rig the game,” said Miller. “Senator Murkowski’s objective is clear: avoid answering tough questions and deprive Alaskan voters of an informed choice.”

During the general election of 2010, Miller appeared in multiple debates with Murkowski, though her name did not even appear on the ballot, including on the state’s most watched news station, the NBC affiliate KTUU.

KTUU, which garners over 80 percent of the news viewing audience in Alaska, wants to host a debate this time, even offering to pre-record it, but Murkowski apparently stonewalled the station.

It also should be noted the commercial fishing industry, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and the Iñuit Arctic Business Alliance all backed Murkowski strongly in 2010, both directly and indirectly.

“The debate schedule Murkowski is offering is not fair to Alaskan voters, who are trying to make an informed decision about who will best represent their views in the next Congress,” said Miller. “I am calling on Lisa Murkowski to do the right thing and participate in televised, open and fair debates.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Now Even Breasts Become Part of the Political Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Is breastfeeding natural? Yes and no, says a paper in the prestigious journal Pediatrics.

It may be “natural” to breastfeed, concludes the treatise, but the authors warn against use of the term by government officials or doctors because it might inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family, for example, that women should be the primary caretakers of children.

Ironically, one of the authors of the paper in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, previously wrote a book titled, “Back to the Breast: Natural Motherhood and Breastfeeding in America.”

No word on whether she has forgone accepting royalties on the title released only last year.

The paper, “Unintended Consequences of Invoking the ‘Natural’ in Breastfeeding Promotion,” was authored by Anne Barnhill, a Ph.D and assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and Jessica Martucci, a fellow (no apology for the gender-oriented title) in the same department who describes herself as a “feminist” historian of “sci/tech/med” and a “twitterstorian.” (Read more from “Now Even Breasts Become Part of the Political Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Won Last Night’s CNN Debate?

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Alan Rappeport. The Republican presidential candidates turned to substance over theatrics on Thursday night in a final effort to court voters before they go to the polls in Florida, Ohio and three other states next week, in what could be a decisive Primary Day. There was little sparring and only a few barbs as the contenders largely stuck to talk of trade, terrorism and immigration. Commentators and critics thought a “low-energy” Donald J. Trump seemed to be running out the clock, while Senator Marco Rubio delivered a sharp performance that probably came too late.

“Rubio with a clear and decisive win. At least it makes the next few days interesting.” — Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report

“Trump very ‘low energy’ so far. No joy in it for him unless another of the monkeys is hurling poop his way.” — Bill Maher, host of “Real Time with Bill Maher”

“On policy — Ted Cruz won. On inspiration and oratory Marco Rubio won.” — Todd Starnes, Fox News host

(Read more from “Who Won Last Night’s CNN Debate?” HERE)

_____________________________

A Good, Substantive Debate That Probably Won’t Change Much

By Jim Geraghty. Do you notice how much better the debates seem with only four candidates?

CNN went for substance, particularly in the opening half-hour, focusing on trade deals, legal immigration visas and entitlement reform. It was generally a good debate, but for the three trying to catch Donald Trump, I don’t think they generated the buzz-worthy, “hey, did you see that?’ moment they needed.

Trump clearly wanted to be more “presidential” this week, and generally demonstrated a quitter, “kindler, gentler” tone. He opened and closed with his best argument – no matter what you think of me, you want and need my voters checking the box for Republicans in November. In between, he was his typical train wreck, with some interesting wrinkles. He said that when he said the Chinese crackdown in Tiananmen Square was a show of strength, he didn’t mean it was a good thing. He clearly had no idea about the details of Cuba policy, talking in circles about how he would insist upon a “good deal.” He insisted the violence at his rallies is all spurred by “bad dudes” who come in to cause trouble, and quickly tried to change the subject to saluting the police. He hates Common Core, and spoke about charter schools as if they were some new idea. After a while, you start to ask, “what is the point of asking questions to a pathological liar who doesn’t know any details?” (Read more from “A Good, Substantive Debate That Probably Won’t Change Much” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Focus Group Asked Who Won Debate – Members Shock With This Candidate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Though Detroit voters overwhelmingly described Thursday’s GOP debate as “sophomoric,” when Republican pollster Frank Luntz asked the Michigan focus group who they thought won the night, the group said only one candidate rose above the “disappointing” rhetoric.

Many came into the debate supporting Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, but after the showdown, it was GOP hopeful John Kasich who emerged as the winner.

When asked for a show of hands, the majority of members agreed on Kasich, who they said was the “only adult in the room” and was “mature” in his discourse.

The voters revealed very negative feelings about the debate, saying it was an “embarrassment,” “shameful” and “despicable,” voicing disapproval over the tone of the discussion and the personal attacks that ensued. One even described the evening as a “schoolyard brawl.” (Read more from “Focus Group Asked Who Won Debate – Members Shock With This Candidate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Good Luck Getting Into Detroit’s GOP Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Michigan Republican Party received more than 21,000 ticket requests for Thursday’s presidential debate in Detroit but will only be giving out about 50 tickets to the public.

The Republican National Committee allocated 400 tickets to the state party, which is expected to give roughly 350 to elected officials, state committee members and grassroots activists, said Michigan GOP spokeswoman Sarah Anderson.

This leaves 50 tickets for the public. The tickets will be randomly awarded to some of the 21,000 people who filled out an online form on the state party website.

“If we have people that are turning them down among our elected officials, then we’ll add that number,” Anderson said. “We want to give out as many as we can. We know that people are excited and want to be there.”

The debate is scheduled to feature GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Ohio Gov. John Kasich as well as Detroit native and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. (Read more from “Good Luck Getting Into Detroit’s GOP Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: What Rubio And Cruz Were Caught Doing During Debate Commercial Break Has People Talking

/3 Comments/in , /by

By Jim Hoft. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were caught shaking hands in front of Trump during a commercial break at last night’s CNN GOP debate.

The two freshmen senators took on front-runner Donald Trump last night at the CNN GOP debate.

(Read more from “Watch: What Rubio and Cruz Were Caught Doing During Debate Commercial Break Has People Talking” HERE)

________________________________

Marco Rubio Mocks Donald Trump for ‘Wet’ Pants

By Tal Kopan. Riding high off a strong debate performance, Marco Rubio went after Donald Trump on Friday with new vigor — even mocking the real estate mogul for worrying that his pants were “wet” Thursday night at the CNN GOP debate.

The Florida senator spent the first roughly 10 minutes of his rally in Dallas, Texas, on Friday morning relentlessly attacking Trump, including reading off misspelled tweets and turning Trump’s attacks back on the reality TV star.

“He called me Mr. Meltdown,” Rubio said, smiling and saying that Thursday night during the commercial breaks, “he went backstage, he was having a meltdown.” (Read more from “Marco Rubio Mocks Donald Trump for ‘Wet’ Pants” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Did MSNBC Put Rachel Maddow on the Debate Stage?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rachel Maddow did a pretty good job in questioning Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at MSNBC’s Democratic debate last night.

But she shouldn’t have been on that stage as a moderator, sitting next to Chuck Todd, NBC’s political director and moderator of “Meet the Press.”

This is not a knock on Maddow as a commentator. She is smart and passionate, a Rhodes scholar with a deep knowledge of the issues. She did not roll over for Clinton during a recent interview on her prime-time show.

But she is an unabashedly liberal commentator who rips the Republicans every night on her program. She should not have been put in that position.

This is especially true because MSNBC has aggressively been trying to shed its left-wing label and rebrand itself as a news network. Brian Williams is now a regular presence as a breaking-news anchor. Liberal hosts who once populated the daytime hours, such as Ed Schultz, Ronan Farrow, Joy Reid and Alex Wagner, have lost their programs. Al Sharpton was shifted to early Sunday morning. Todd was brought back for a daily show. The liberals are now restricted to the evening hours. (Read more from “Why Did MSNBC Put Rachel Maddow on the Debate Stage?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Won the Ratings Race: Fox News or Donald Trump?

/3 Comments/in , /by

By Brian Stelter. Donald Trump’s counter-programming stunt succeeded in stealing viewers from Fox News’ Republican presidential debate.

Thursday night marked the second lowest rated GOP debate of the season. And Trump was the most-talked-about candidate without even being there.

Trump, who had refused to attend the debate, showed off his ratings magnetism by depriving Fox of it . . .

But Trump’s rivals, like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, still reached a big audience by debating, which suggests that there are some limits to Trump’s power.

Practically speaking, there is no way Trump’s event could have out-rated the debate. But ratings experts said Trump did appear to take a chunk out of Fox’s audience. (Read more from “Who Won the Ratings Race: Fox News or Donald Trump?” HERE)

_____________________________

Debate Without Trump Gets Better Ratings Than Last Debate With Trump

By John McCormack. Donald Trump’s campaign manager predicted that Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate on Fox News would only get “about 2 million” viewers because Trump refused to show up. In fact, “Fox News likely had 11 million to 13 million viewers for the debate,” CNN’s Brian Stelter reports.

Thursday’s debate ended up getting higher ratings than the the last debate in which Trump participated. “Fox’s Trump-less debate had an 8.4 household rating, according to early Nielsen data from so-called metered markets,” reports CNN’s Stelter. (Read more from “Debate Without Trump Gets Better Ratings Than Last Debate With Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.