Disappointed but not Surprised by Trump’s Debate Performance





Every four years conservatives are offered a rare opportunity to make their case to the American people when voters, who would normally never give them the time of day, tune in for the presidential debates.  Some voters may be tuning in just to cheer on the Democrat nominee; but whatever the reason, they’re there, and the chance to influence the thinking of the close-minded is both rare and priceless.  Republicans essentially pre-squandered this precious opportunity when they chose to nominate yet another non-conservative for the job this time around; consequently I let go of high expectations early on, but there is always the consolation prize to hope for, that being that the Republican nominee will at least deliver an oral ass-whooping to the Democrat.  On Monday I was guardedly hopeful based upon my naïvely held belief that certain truths, no matter how ineloquently spoken, will always triumph over the lies of the Left, but alas on that score I was to be disappointed as well.

Trump showed himself to be unworthy of the task from the very beginning when he failed to adequately challenge the moderator’s false, opening premise of an improving economy under Barack Obama by pointing out that the numbers have been manipulated to hide the truth about massive under employment, long-term income stagnation and widening income inequality.  That’s an important fact that the average Democrat probably doesn’t hear in his normally limited circle of influence.  This was followed by an abundance of missed opportunities by Trump that many analysts and pundits have already noted.  There was no mention of the fatal failures in Benghazi, pay for play in the Clinton Foundation, our massive illegal immigration crisis, the refugee debate, the rise of Black Lives Matter or Obamacare, to name a few.  Furthermore it would have behooved Trump to take a sharp jab at Clinton for her typical leftwing hypocrisies on things like gun control and climate change, because those hypocrisies expose the lies without Trump having to evoke the word, “liar.”

Trump scored a few points by calling Clinton out on her empty promises after “30 years” of being in a position of influence, but she managed to soften that blow with the comment that Trump was ready to blame her for everything wrong with the country, and his retort of “Why not?” left many, I’m certain, with the impression that his criticisms were merely gratuitous.

Clinton was able to score points by hitting Trump on his failure to provide tax returns, proving the fairy’s rebuke to Pinocchio that “A lie keeps growing and growing until it’s as plain as the nose on your face.” Trump looked foolish by first raising the audit excuse but then immediately offering to provide the supposedly unavailable returns if Clinton provides her emails.  It’s abundantly clear to everyone, even the most stubborn and fanatical Trump fans who are lying if they claim to disagree, that he simply doesn’t want to reveal his tax returns to the public.  Given that the average person doesn’t have a clue how to understand the complicated taxes of a businessman like Trump he’s probably wise not to put them out there, but he would have been far wiser still to come to the debate prepared with a strong, unapologetic answer.  Personally I’ve always thought it a good policy to simply tell the truth, such as:

“Unlike Hillary Clinton I haven’t been running for political office for 30 years and like most sane people I’ve made it my goal to minimize my tax burden, but with our criminally complicated tax system the average person is not going to understand my complex returns and Democrats like Hillary will simply use the information to distract voters and avoid talking about things that matter, such as our 20 trillion dollar debt crisis, our illegal immigration crisis or ISIS.  But since we’re on the subject of finances, how about The Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s pay to play politics?”  

Just a suggestion, Mr. Trump.

Further adding to my frustration was Trump’s inexcusable failure to correct the record when Clinton falsely and astonishingly blamed the economic meltdown of 2008 on wealthy Americans when the truth is that it was Democrat policies, spearheaded by Jimmie Carter and her husband, good old Bill, that set those wheels in motion.  Sure, Wall Street played a role too, but WHO is in the pocket of Wall Street?  That’s right:  Hillary Clinton & Company.  It might have been nice for Trump to mention all that.  Instead his failure to challenge her lies surely helped to cement them further in the minds of the uninformed.

Finally, there was the moment where Trump let pass the opportunity to respond when Clinton criticized his treatment of women.  We’re supposed to believe that Trump just didn’t have the heart to hit back with the obvious retort.  Call me a cynic but I found it glaringly disingenuous, which made it a double failure for Trump.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that the woman who claims to be righteously indignant over Trump’s ill treatment of women has a well-known history of her own in that regard.  Once again, pointing out the hypocrisy would have reminded voters of what a liar she is, but….sigh.  I’ll give Trump credit for getting in a few good points and hits, but I was hoping for that great moment when he would pull a rhetorical bucket of water from under his podium and dump it on Clinton so that we could watch her disappear while screaming, “I’m melting!  I’m melting!” and leaving nothing but a puddle of water with an over-priced red pantsuit lying in it.  It never happened.

As for Hillary, what a joke.  I know the leftists are happy and/or relieved with her “performance,” but I am reminded of my old joke about the man who laughs as hoodlums destroy his car because, unbeknownst to them, he’s moved from the spot where they told him to stand when they weren’t looking.  If you think a presidential candidate who has to repeatedly lie and practice for days to memorize a few pages of talking points is anything to be proud or happy about, then I’m sad for you (but much more so for the rest of us).  I found Hillary’s non-stop smiling to be utterly phony and grotesquely cartoonish; and her clear attempts to disrespect Trump with faux amusement displayed a childishness and cowardice that no one should applaud.  In other words, SHE’s the one who behaved like a jerk.  Trump may have the misfortune of having aged into the human form of Grumpy Cat, but at least he comes off as genuine.  Given the sad state this nation is in his serious demeanor was far more appropriate and relatable than Hillary’s demented smiling, which reminds me of one last point on Trump with respect to the question of temperament.  Clearly he had rehearsed an answer in the event that the issue of temperament came up, but by throwing it out seemingly out of the blue the words “he doth protest too much” sprung to my mind.  Ironically I agree with him that he has the better temperament of the two, but his incoherent reference to Hillary’s shrill labor union video didn’t convey that.  Perhaps he should have said, “With me, what you see is what you get.  I’m genuine.  With Hillary, the laughing and forced smiling you see on the stage tonight are just a façade that hide the real Hillary Clinton, as has been written about in many books by people who know her well.  I implore you to educate yourself before you vote.



Categories: Political

12 replies

  1. I only watched the first 15 minutes and was convinced that I could forecast what would follow from that. Trump obviously didn’t think the debate was important enough to prepare for it – he looked to me as if he was satisfied that he could “wing it” and do just fine. Well, he may have done ok to some, but the important thing is that he missed on an opportunity to hit back at Hillary on areas on which she is vulnerable. I’ve read numerous reports of his performance since the debate and that seems to be a consensus. Hillary, as soulless and vapid as she is, was prepared and gave her carefully constructed and rehearsed claptrap as expected – fodder for those with hands out.

    I know it wasn’t meant to be, but I can’t help but think of what Cruz would have done to her in Trump’s place.


    • A lot of Back seat quarterbacks! By the way did any of you miss the fact that this debate was two against one? Oh well, I voted for Cruz and they would have done the same to him. Bottom line clear difference between the two and anybody else running has no credibility. Trump vote here.


      • Are you trying to spoil my fun?

        I know that honesty is being discouraged just about everywhere these days, Jack, but if you and other Trump cheerleaders think you’re doing Trump a big favor by keeping mum about his obvious failures in the debate you’re making a big mistake. The truth – both telling it and hearing it – is the only thing that will help Donald Trump, and I don’t forfeit my right to speak the truth for anyone.

        Yes, I’m well aware that it was two against one. In these days of the biased media, and after watching Mitt Romney’s experience with Candy Crowley, Trump should be prepared for that reality. BTW, Trump didn’t exactly hold back in his criticism of Mitt Romney’s performance, did he? As long as Trump is asking for my support (I get 6 letters and 10 emails a day asking for my help) no one, least of all Trump, should question my right to critique.


      • I understand your points very well, and would never presume to suggest a denial of your right to comment. In the
        same breath, I stated my opinion and stick with it. I doubt, but could be wrong, that we will do much to change Trump at this point. I suggest that maybe the last debate he listened to, too many Republican RINO’s that are part of his team and rightfully got
        done by the opponents. He does better just being him and that is what the majority that got him this far want. I say political correctness out the door and Trumpism’s for the next 4 years anyway. Couldn’t be much worse than the last 16 years. I worry more about the Senate right now as it looks like the Republican Party could lose it and that is just more chaos for Americans
        everywhere. I got a question for you. Do you think perhaps, we should all be demanding that money for political candidates i.e., Senators/House of Representatives should be limited to donors with actual residence in the specific state they are running for office in. I grow weary of the PAC mentality in these races because that is money from outside the State. I also don’t like foreign money sources from out of this country. Always interested in your thoughts, I hope Trump is also.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Welcome back, Jack. Thanks for your response.

        You said: “[Trump] does better just being him and that is what the majority that got him this far want.”

        The fact is, Trump won with a plurality in the primary, not a majority, meaning that more Republicans voted AGAINST him than voted for him. Those die-hard Trump fans who think he’s cool just being himself are now a small minority of the general election voters, so it would behoove Mr. Trump to consider what the wider audience wants to hear if he sincerely wants to win.

        Having said that, I agree with you to a certain extent. Trump’s appeal is in his refusal to bend to political correctness, as in when he talks frankly about illegal immigration, Muslim refugees, lawlessness by blacks in the inner cities or Hillary Clinton’s crookedness. Did he talk about ANY of that in Monday’s debate? No. On the contrary, when he had the chance to deal Hillary a legitimate and well-deserved blow by pointing out her horrible hypocrisy on the treatment of women, he decided to go phony and take a pass. In other words, he didn’t follow your advice; he wasn’t the real Trump.

        With respect to your question about donations to candidates by non-residents, my answer is ‘No,’ we should not disallow outside donations. While I completely sympathize with your weariness, we have a federal government that has become way too powerful and congress is part of that. As a resident of Texas, I can’t vote to replace Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, yet their votes and actions in congress affect me as much as those of my own representatives. I hear you, we shouldn’t have to fight with our money this way, but until Americans take back their power from the federal government money is the only weapon we have to fight back. To whatever extent I can I proudly give money to defeat liberals and help conservatives in tight races all over the country, but trust me, I’d much rather spend that money on a trip to Hawaii.


      • Thanks for your good thoughts 🙂


  2. I guess we’ll see what happens in the next two debates.

    In 2012, Romney absolutely slaughtered Obozo in their first debate. We know how that one ended up.


  3. Gingrich and some of the other talking heads bragged that he came out strong, but it looked like Trump did zero preparation work at all and I cringed when he first started going on one of those long rambling responses that usually don’t answer the question asked. It would have been better if he’d given a very brief answer and then turned his remarks on Hillary.

    He did what so many Republican candidates do and that’s allowing the moderator to put them on the defensive – a habit they desperately need to break. It’s a debate – not the inquisition. He got stronger as the evening progressed, but could have come off much more polished from the start.

    On the other hand, Hillary started out looking very prepared and later faltered. I wanted to smack that fake condescending smile off her face, and maybe it’s just me, but she got an unnerving look in her eyes when she mentioned gun control. It only lasted a couple of seconds, but for a moment the evil and her hatred of our 2A rights were glaringly obvious.

    Is Trump saving the big guns for later debates or will he continue to take it easy on her because of their long time friendship of sorts? Time will tell, but I hate to think he could give it away by not using the abundant ammo at his disposal.


    • >>”… it looked like Trump did zero preparation work…”

      It sure did, Kathy. Gingrich is kidding himself, perhaps hoping for a self-fulfilling prophecy, and diehard Trump fans are clinging to his words.

      In the days of early voting and short attention spans I can’t imagine that any campaign adviser worth his or her paycheck would advise Trump to save anything for a future debate. The goal should be to kill it every time, but Trump failed to anticipate what kind of sparring opponent Hillary would be. Politics is a game to Democrats, and Hillary spent as much time practicing her phony smile and arrogant smirk and gotcha lines as she did brushing up on policy. She successfully pursued a strategy of putting Trump on defense, and that’s never good because it means you’re not talking about the things you need to talk about. That doesn’t necessarily mean she “won.” But I’m doubtful that Trump’s performance changed many minds, and that’s what he needs to do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: