By Stephen Macaulay

While it is politically acceptable to call what happened Tuesday night a “debate,” it was nothing of the sort, nor was it expected to be.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. There is nothing decorous about politics now, nor has there ever been. The Founding Fathers didn’t bow and scrape to one another. Didn’t you see “Hamilton”? Do you think Aaron Burr was the only bad guy with a gun?

“But we should expect more,” you decry.

Why? Whether you support or despise Trump, you know the man has no filter, he will lie and fulminate, talk about totally imaginary things and scenarios, then claim they never happened, and do so with the bluster and bravado that makes the shouting matches between 10-year-olds seem Churchillian.

This isn’t a case of one side or the other. Trump is Trump. 

Always has been, always will be.

That’s who the man is. We know that. He’s not the guy who is going to appear in a V-neck sweater with the debate-team logo. And, like it or not, he won the last election, and not because he was some sort of political mandarin. 

All this pearl-clutching is ridiculous.

It would be all too easy to call Trump a street fighter or a bully, but people of that nature don’t have real, or alleged, millions (or billions?) of dollars to fall back on.

He’s a guy who ran his own business and was able to have people who didn’t listen to him fired. It’s his way or the highway.

Both sides know this.

Yet, for some reason, people are now trying to score the behavior of Trump and Biden as though there is some sort of even metric to use. Yes, both men are running for the same office, both are white guys in their 70s, both are people who have more visibility than any of us will ever achieve –  so we imagine that they are somewhat more special or behave in exemplary ways.

Nope.

Much of the post-melee commentary has obligatory mentions of Biden’s jibes at Trump, calling him “a clown” and a “racist,” and telling him to “shut up,” as though there is some behavioral equivalence.

There isn’t. We know this. So … let’s stop pretending.

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

——

By Todd Lassa

While few pundits credit the first presidential debate of the season Tuesday night with edifying viewers on the positions and policy proposals of either President Donald J. Trump or former Vice President Joseph Biden, the hand-wringing of that inauspicious verbal battle has sucked all the political air out of the entire week. 

We – as editors and as a nation – are still asking what should be done about the debate that had future PTSD victim Chris Wallace, of Fox News, trying everything he could to claw back control of the 90-minute debacle. The next day, the Commission for Presidential Debates issued a statement announcing it would make running changes for the two remaining presidential wrestling matches, as well as next week’s debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

“Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure more orderly discussion of the issues,” CPD’s statement said. “The CPD will be carefully considering the changes that it will adopt and will announce the measures shortly.”

In the center column of Wednesday’s issue of The Hustings, we suggested perhaps a mic cutoff switch for the moderator, although moderators would still have trouble moderating as they would still hear the two candidates trying to talk over each other. 

Perhaps make Trump and Biden sit in electrified chairs, and give the moderator a buzzer-switch? Many immediately called for cancelling the remainder of the reality TV series’ season.

The remaining debates are Oct. 7 [the only vice presidential debate among the four scheduled] at the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, moderated by USA Today’s Susan Page; an Oct. 15 Town Hall Meeting [a format some pundits expect will reel in Trump and Biden as they take questions from citizens] at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, moderated by the C-SPAN Networks’ Steve Scully, and Oct. 22 at Belmont University in Nashville, moderated by NBC News’ Kristen Welker. 

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

By Andrew Boyd

We may be a divided electorate, but we’re all living in the aftermath of Tuesday night’s “debate,” which, if I’d stayed for the credits, would likely have listed Jerry Bruckheimer as director. All sound and fury, with little in the way character development or narrative depth. That was Tuesday night, and I imagine we all are hoping for a much-improved sequel.

Right now, however, we’re all left to pick through the wreckage to see if there’s anything we might salvage that helps inform our decisions come November.

In Biden, I saw an ill-tempered fellow, with no meaningfully greater sense of civility or decorum than the other grumpy old man on the rostrum.  More troubling is the sense that Joe seems anchored to nothing at all in terms of policy ideas. He loves America but insists it’s racist to its core. The Green New Deal is terrific, it’ll pay for itself, but he’s not for it.  Fracking must end, except where it supports jobs and potential votes. And the list goes on.  Some may be left wondering who and what it is they are actually voting for if they pull the lever for the Scranton kid. I know I would.

As for Trump, I guess we conservatives get what we deserve. Intemperate to the core, with an ego the size of purple Texas (though I’m not sure I believe the polls on that one), he’s never been easy on the ears or the soul, and that may be his ultimate undoing. The American people are on their last nerve, and I think Tuesday may have been close to a deal breaker.  It’s not over yet, and perhaps he can recover, but my hopes are fading.  If there’s a sequel to this raw and rancorous Tuesday night fight, I pray that the orange man can get in touch with the better angels of his nature, assuming they can still fog a mirror. 

Onward into the uncertain future with best wishes for the health and welfare of all well-meaning people, everywhere, irrespective of political bent.  And may God bless, America.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30 years-experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

By Michelle Naranjo

“That debate was the worst thing I’ve ever seen & I was in ‘The Star Wars Holiday Special’"

– Mark Hamill on Twitter

My sympathies go out to moderator Chris Wallace and the task handed to him. In future debates, a kill mic switch should be available to the moderators because the spectacle viewers watched tonight was an insult to voters. To say that it was chaotic is an understatement. 

There was undoubtedly debate prep done on each side, but Joe Biden, when he wasn’t laughing at Donald Trump, or telling him to shut up, delivered valid points. From the inappropriate nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, to Trump’s dismissal of experts in healthcare, science, and the environment, Biden attempted to drive home clear points that would usually be seen as considerate, respectful, and even presidential.

Trump wasn’t there to do any of the above. Wallace got a hard lesson very quickly that he wasn’t in control as a moderator. The current president did a dog whistle to white supremacists, refusing to denounce them, even saying, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." The quote already is reflected in the new logo of that organization and was just one of many moments that must have had viewers reeling. 

Biden did manage to remain composed and directly addressed the viewers on several salient points, despite the blur of word salad thrown out from his opponent. One powerful moment meaningful to so many watching was his defense of his son Hunter’s addiction and ongoing recovery. 

The Biden statement tonight that keeps ringing for me isn’t the responses to the barrage of insults, but this: “Under this president, we have become weaker, sicker, poorer, more divided, and more violent.” He’s been paying attention.

Some are questioning the future of these debates, but they need to continue: especially since the next one will be a town hall-style where the candidates have to face voter questions. Which they might even listen to.

Naranjo is a freelance writer based in rural Pennsylvania.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

By Bryan Williams

I stopped watching cable TV news more than a decade ago, and anyway, because of my two-hour evening commute in the Pacific time zone instead listened to the first presidential debate of the 2020 season on National Public Radio.

The lack of visuals intensified the cacophony of people talking over each other, and all three men on the debate stage at Cleveland’s Case Western Reserve University did just that. And yes, President Trump started it and was the worst offender. What to think of 2020’s version of John McLaughlin (Trump) and Eleanor Clift (Biden)? 

Biden didn’t fall into guffawing senility as portrayed in so many YouTube videos, and he did a good job staying on topic and speaking articulately, was bright at times, and made some clean platitudes. I’m sure Biden looked nice too, but he wasn’t able to land a knockout punch. It wasn’t the storybook performance his supporters might have hoped for.

Trump, predictably, put on a bombastic show, and I laughed out loud at many of his quips and retorts. Did he knock it out of the park? Yes and no. He could have hit Biden harder on a lot of the former vice president’s more glaring racial remarks from earlier in the campaign season. Statements like, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t black,” and his comparison between political diversity in the Hispanic community, versus the Black community still makes me blush. 

Trump could have better connected some of his points about the way California is being run to what Biden has in store for the United States. I was able to connect those dots, and I’m sure others following the debate were able to as well. Those dots point to Joe Biden’s plan to move the nation toward what my home state is already: A bureaucratically bloated, ultra-liberal, high-tax, pie-in-the-sky progressive dystopia. Trump said, “What they’ve done in California is just crazy,” and he is 100-percent correct.

Williams is a mental health professional in California, and was involved in local, state, and federal Republican politics from 2005-2019.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

This is representative of the Left-Column commentary The Hustings will soon present from among a collection of contributing pundits.

Four of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have been nominated by presidents (George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump) who lost the popular vote for their first terms, but won via the Electoral College. There will be five, more than half the court, if the Senate votes to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Trump’s choice, which would be his third nominee. 

“To jam this nominee through the Senate is just a raw exercise in political power,” Biden said Sunday. 

The certain hard-right conservative majority on the Supreme Court that surely would result with the nomination of someone like Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagos would be chosen by a minority of voters; both of President Trump and of the 53-member majority from predominantly low-population states. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) have said they will not vote for Trump’s nominee before the election, but it is time for two more Republicans to join them. 

-30-

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

By Todd Lassa

Lines have been drawn in what could be the biggest political battle since The Reconstruction, following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Friday. President Trump says he will nominate a woman to Ginsburg’s seat this week and expects the Senate to approve his choice before the presidential election, just 43 days away. 

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden called on the Senate to honor Ginsburg’s wishes, as the progressive icon told her granddaughter, Clara Spera, before her death, as NPR reported. 

Ginsburg told her granddaughter she requests that “I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported. 

But by Sunday, NPR was reporting that Trump followers’ “Build the Wall!” t-shirts had been supplanted with “Fill the Seat!” shirts. The argument that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who blocked President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, with Merrick Garland for nine months leading up to the 2016 election was being hypocritical in pushing Trump’s expected 2020 nominee seemed resolved by Sunday as representative of the state of our Red and Blue political gulf. 

Even if the Senate fails to approve Trump’s nominee before the election, there is a very good chance the Republican majority could push her through before the January 20, 2021, inauguration.

Thus the November 3 presidential election, which is already underway in various states with early and mail-in voting, appears to hinge on Trump’s replacement for Ginsburg. The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new session on October 5, when it will take up a case on a Trump administration challenge to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and may even have to consider challenges to the outcome of the presidential election, which most analysts and pundits agree will not be settled on November 3.

-30-

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

This is representative of the Right-Column commentary The Hustings will soon present from among a collection of contributing pundits.

President Trump says he will name a woman to the Supreme Court to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg this week, The Wall Street Journal reports on its front page. A commentary on the Journal’s op-ed page argues that the 2016 presidential and 2018 midterm elections, the latter of which retained a Republican majority in the Senate, negates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s alleged hypocrisy regarding the chamber’s handling of the nominee. 

Voters “showed clear preference for Trump’s nominees,” the editorial posits. 

Meanwhile, The New York Times Sunday quoted a voter on how Trump’s support for anti-abortion judges has built support by evangelical voters.

“This is why we wanted this guy,” the evangelical voter said.

-30-

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–