Showing posts with label Trump the Bully. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump the Bully. Show all posts

Thursday, October 01, 2020

VOTE2020 - Trump Turns Presidential Debate into a Brawl

 "Trump sets the tone for the worst Presidential debate in living memory" by Dan Balz, The Washington Post 9/2/2020

Excerpt

No one alive has ever seen a Presidential debate like Tuesday night’s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former vice President Joe Biden — 90 minutes of invective, interruptions and personal insults.  It was an insult to the public as well, and a sad example of the state of American democracy five weeks before the election.

On the margins, the debate probably did more to help Biden than the President, at a moment when Trump needed to change the shape and trajectory of the campaign.  But that’s not what people will remember.  Even partisans locked into their choices were probably dispirited at what they were witnessing.  One can only imagine what the next two debates between the two men will look like.

For decades, general-election debates have provided Americans with the opportunity to measure the candidates in an open forum, with moderators aiming to stay out of the way when possible.  They have always included showmanship and sharp exchanges, but within the boundaries of what people expect of their Presidents.  All of that went out the window Tuesday night.

The tone of the debate was established by Trump in the opening minutes, and it never changed to the end of the evening.  The President constantly ignored moderator Chris Wallace’s repeated pleas to maintain order as he took every opportunity and more to verbally hector Biden, throw his rival off balance and take up as much space as possible.  This was the Trump who lives on Twitter, not someone who occupies the highest office in the land.

Biden, advised to maintain his cool, constantly looked peevish at Trump’s behavior, responding at times with well-prepared rejoinders but also with dismissive verbal broadsides.  Exasperated at one point, he shot back at the President, “Will you shut up, man?”  Biden cleared the low bar of expectations that the Trump campaign had inexplicably set for him but hardly delivered a shining performance.

The dreary debate fittingly ended as it began, in a moment that foreshadowed a tumultuous and divisive end to the election, as Trump pressed his argument, without evidence, that mail ballots are rife with fraud and the election therefore will be invalid.

Trump declined to say that he would ask his supporters to stay calm until a final count had been validated and instead chillingly indicated that he plans to rile up his backers to challenge and contest the counting everywhere possible.  He said he would accept the outcome only if he believed the election had been fair.

Biden said he would accept the outcome and predicted that Trump would too, once the votes were counted, no matter the winner.  Perhaps.

The reality TV star President knows one speed on a debate stage: to attack, to bully his opponent and to ignore the rules.  For Wallace, a tough and skilled interviewer, the debate was a nightmare.

“Mr.  President! Mr. President,” he exclaimed at one point as Trump refused to stay silent when Biden was answering a question.  “Gentlemen!” he said at another moment as the two sparred loudly about Trump’s attack on Biden’s son Hunter.

Rare were the moments when the two nominees actually discussed their differences calmly and clearly in a debate that ranged across several topics, including the coronavirus pandemic, the Supreme Court, the economy, racial justice, and violence in American cities.  More often than not, rather than engaging in exchanges that even bordered on civil, Trump and Biden talked over and past each other.

Judging the debate by traditional standards gives the evening more credit than it deserves.  For most people, this was unwatchable, a grab-the-remote, change-the-channel moment in a forum that in past election years has served the country well.  What two more debates like this will accomplish is hard to imagine, other than to heighten tensions in a country already on edge.

Biden came ready to make his points and at times was far more focused in doing so than was the President.  In an opening question about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he touched on the Affordable Care Act, abortion, public health and the 200,000 deaths from COVID-19.  He repeatedly branded Trump a liar who didn’t know what he was talking about.

Trump played a different game, one of attack and belittle.  He hit Biden hard, particularly on law and order in the one moment when he seemed to have a prepared and consistent line of criticism and that his supporters were probably applauding.  He tried repeatedly to hang the socialist label around his rival, and Biden, perhaps to the dismay of some on the left, ran away from any suggestion that he is captive to the liberal wing of the party.

At times, each declined to answer direct questions about his positions and policy proposals.  Biden wouldn’t say whether he would support expanding the Supreme Court if he won the election and Democrats captured the Senate.  Trump wouldn’t answer a direct question about whether, as the New York Times reported, he paid just $750 in federal income taxes for 2016 and 2017.

Trump needed this debate more than did Biden, given the current shape of the race.  Four years ago, he came to the first debate with the polls narrowing and in a year when there was more movement and seeming volatility in his contest with Hillary Clinton.

This year there has been only modest movement in the polls, with Biden steadily leading by an average of nine points before the two national conventions, according to a Washington Post average of polls, and now leading by eight points.

Potentially more troubling for Trump has been his inability to break across a barrier that would move his support into the high 40s.  He has been stuck in poll averages somewhere around 43 percent or 44 percent since the late spring, while Biden has been around 50 percent or above since the beginning of last summer.

Trump’s challenge Tuesday was to change the race from a referendum on his presidency into a clear choice between him and Biden.  That is the goal of any incumbent President but especially for this President, who has used his office to make himself front and center in every way he can but in ways that now are hurting him politically.

Instead he [Trump] chose otherwise, and it could cost him.  Biden may have missed opportunities, but his only real goal was to do nothing to change the race.  On that minimal goal, he succeeded.  But that’s not what will be remembered about Tuesday night.  Instead it will be the degree to which democracy itself has suffered and could suffer more as the election plays out to its conclusion.

This has been called the most important election in generations — some say in the life of the country.  But that’s not what people who tuned in saw.  Partisans will call winners and losers as they see them, and those judgments will be predictable.  Collectively, this was not a night when the country could claim victory.  Instead, it was quite the opposite.


Monday, April 22, 2019

AMERICAN POLITICS - Bully Trump vs Ilhan Omar

"Trump escalates feud with Rep. Ilhan Omar" PBS NewsHour 4/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has again gone on the offensive toward Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn).  On Friday, he Tweeted a 9/11 video alongside Omar’s comments about the terrorist attacks, which critics said downplayed them.  Rep. Omar says she has since been threatened.  As Yamiche Alcindor reports, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic 2020 candidates criticized the President for his incendiary rhetoric.


Monday, March 18, 2019

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 3/15/2019

"Shields and Brooks on New Zealand massacre, 2020 Democrats’ ideology" PBS NewsHour 3/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week's news, including hate and tragedy in New Zealand, President Trump’s aggressive and “reckless” rhetoric and the latest updates from the field of 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And with that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

We're going to get to politic in just a moment.

But, David, I want to start with this terrible massacre at two mosques in New Zealand.  We just talked to our guests it.

What does it say about — I was going to say about where we are in terms of tone.  What does it say about us as a human race right now?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, we're seeing a culture cry in pain and rage and alienation, a culture that's divided, that is isolated, where people are lonely, committing suicide at high rates.

And one of the things some lonely people with existential angst do is, they turn into fanatics.  And that's been the case all through history.  And we're just at a moment of just cultural pain.  And you get these horrific outbreaks.

Some of it is gentle, relatively gentle, screaming at each about politics.  Some of it is really bad, the suicide and the murder rate, the opioid rate.  And some of it is horrific, which is these mass shootings that we see across Western society.

And it's just the definition of our cultural moment.  And the thing that Kathleen Belew said, I think, is worth repeating, that it's a movement.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  And it used to be a movement or even a terror army was a group of people who had some internal structure and internal structure and institutions.

But now they're radically decentralized webs organized by the Internet.  And so, just because they have never met anybody — each other doesn't mean they're all part of one thing.  And they are part of one series of fanatical ideas.

And what's interesting is how they wink and nod to each other through their statements in their Internet or through their statements in their manifestos.  And so they're quoting — this guy was quoting somebody — the guy in the Pittsburgh synagogue.  And that's just a scary form of movement.

Judy Woodruff:  For them, it's all of a piece, Mark, even though they don't have a leader.

As David said, Kathleen Belew was saying a moment ago, this is — they're all about eliminating everybody who isn't white.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Yes.  No, I agree, and I was struck by Kathleen Belew's remark that it's a white power movement and a social groundswell.

And I can't help but think that the amplification and strengthening of this institution or this movement has occurred through the Internet.  The idea that if somebody held those beliefs in the past, there was almost a sense of isolation, because they were so widely unacceptable to most people.

But now you get ratification, you get validation, because you can talk to people, whether it's somebody who is going after Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston or the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or in New Zealand yesterday going after Muslims at prayer.

And it truly is — it's worldwide in its movement.  And it's obviously not based on anything other than that sense of anger, resentment, alienation, and hostility.

David Brooks:  It should be pointed out the tendency to go after houses of worship is not an accident.

Mark Shields:  No.

David Brooks:  It is a form of anti-religion.  It's faith or a movement of hatred.

And this has not been the first time in history that we have had this, and so you get these war — moral wars.  Somebody pointed out that, when the printing press was first created, people thought it would herald in an age of peace, because we could all talk to each other through the written word.  And we got hundreds of years of religious war.

And so open communication can have these horrifically negative effects.  And Ryan O'Lieber (ph) said back in the '50s that existential anxiety, if you don't know what your moral purpose is, you turn into a fanatic, because this sort of white or black or any kind of racial power movement gives you a very clean moral logic.  You know what your purpose is in the universe.  And you have a clear enemy you can go kill who are inhuman.

And so it cures all your existential anxiety, because suddenly everything is literally black and white.

Judy Woodruff:  But you don't really right now, Mark, have an effort to condemn it, to say this is wrong.

I mean, it's on the margins.

Mark Shields:  No, we all know it's wrong.  I mean, it is.

I mean, but how do you confront something that is almost subterranean?  I mean, it's not something that we run into, most of us, in our carpool or daily.

There was just one moment yesterday on Capitol Hill, when the most powerful Democrat in the country quoted the most popular Republican President of the last century.

And I would just like to read it.  And it just said, thanks to the — quoting this President:  "Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, always leading the world to the next frontier.  If we ever close the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world will soon be lost" — Ronald Reagan's last speech to the American people.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Nancy Pelosi.

Mark Shields:  And it was quoted by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, at the luncheon for the Irish Prime Minister yesterday, Donald Trump sitting there as she said this.

But, I mean, wow.  I mean, it's just one of those moments you say, we are not who we were.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And it's an assertion that what joins us across race is more important than what divides us.

Mark Shields:  Yes, exactly.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we're talking about — you made the segue to President Trump.

And I was going to ask this in the context, David, of the 12 Republicans yesterday in the Senate who went against the President on his emergency declaration on the border.

But what has come up in the last day or so is a comment the President made in an interview with Breitbart News, the right-wing Web site.  And he said — and he was condemning Democrats and saying they were the left.  He said it's tough.

But he went on to say: "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, support of the Bikers for Trump.  I have the tough people.  But they don't play it tough, until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."

I'm contrasting that with what President Reagan said.

David Brooks:  Yes, again, he left out the Brownshirts.  It is classic authoritarianism.  It's almost Mussolini-like.

I happen to think it's compensation.  As a friend told me, a friend of Donald Trump's told me that he's terribly afraid of confrontation in person.  He will do it over the Internet, but he won't do it in person.  And so he needs to project toughness.

And he admires toughness in the Saudis and Putin, in the North Koreans.  And that's his highest virtue, but it's something of a blustery front, which is typical of bullies.

Mark Shields:  Reckless beyond belief.  I just — I can't believe it.  Words matter, especially the words of a President.

And he's not talking to Breitbart or any particular group.  Whenever the President speaks, he's speaking to all of us and for all of us.  And this was criminally reckless.  It was almost sanctioning, if not condoning, any act of violence by one of his supporters, armed supporters, against a political critic, a political opponent, saying, I understand it.

I contrast — I just contrast it with the words of a Reagan or a Kennedy or any other President.