They’re over. Let the real games begin.
No, it’s not the Olympics – they’ve been over for a couple weeks now. I’m speaking of the quadrennial presidential nominating conventions, which both Republicans and Democrats
went all out to stage and produce. Having watched a good chunk of both party extravaganzas, I have to say that this year’s iterations were about as well plotted out as any in recent memory. Or it simply could be said that 2020’s big shows were so unmemorable and anti-climactic that they were hardly worth the bother. To be fair, President Donald Trump turned the scenario into something unique and noteworthy, positioning his address in front of the White House as a backdrop. It was very well done.
Democrats hid behind COVID in putting on their 2020 show, which probably makes president senile Joe Biden all the more jealous for having missed out on his chance – at both conventions – to be the top dog, the one who everyone looks forward to seeing.
It could be said that senile Joe will go down in history as the Charlie Brown of political candidates, seeing as he was confined to speaking to a parking lot full of cars in 2020 and pushed so far back in the program this year that he practically – and literally – spoke the next day on the calendar, at a time when almost everyone had already retired for the evening.
Poor Joe. Always the proverbial bridesmaid and never the bride. But the Obamas stole the show in Chicago, no matter how Democrats tried to spin the fill-in candidacy of cackling Kamala Harris and “Tampon Tim” Walz. It had to be a major letdown for Democrats to amuse themselves over the “stars” of their party the first two nights – and even seeing Big Bubba Bill Clinton on Wednesday before Walz waddled on stage – only to be brought down to earth by Kamala Harris’s limited political ability on Thursday night.
It's almost like going to the movies and having the main feature come before the previews. Or seeing a headlining band follow-up the opening acts. Democrats spent the better part of three nights attempting to make cackling Kamala seem first-rate, but kind of like Biden being demoted to after-hours mop-up duty, so was Kamala.
What did Obama say that time? “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” That’s Kamala.
At the same time, Democrats always go to excesses in promoting their mediocre talent. Every twenty or so years they come up with a generational pol like Barack Obama – and his wife – people who could lie so convincingly that the gullible and uninformed just swayed along and believed all the garbage about racism and sexism and… well, you know.
Kamala Harris is none of those things. An empty pantsuit, a non-stop producer of word salads with no substance and that aren’t satisfying. Harris’s Thursday night concluding address was underwhelming to say the least. Where Trump’s was subdued and somewhat too long a month before, Harris’s was just plain boring. She’s not in Obama’s league, or Trump’s – and not in J.D. Vance’s either. She’s a stand-in, the woman who “fit the suit” and now Democrats are stuck with her. And Tampon Tim, too. Let the truth get out!
With Kamala Harris, Donald Trump has been handed a tremendous gift, a woman who couldn’t debate her way out of a paper bag. Yet Trump is going to have to take a step back and actually improve his act. Perhaps it’s because he’s done way too many interviews lately and hasn’t put his time into honing his message. Trump has a lot to say and still has an opportunity to say it, but he must tighten things up.
The nominee won’t like hearing this. But he could take a page out of running mate J.D. Vance’s book in how to perfect his presentation. Otherwise, he could very well lose. In a piece titled “Trump and the Art of Losing”, the imminently wise Daniel Oliver wrote at American Greatness last week:
“It may seem that Trump trounced Biden in their first, and only, debate. But a cursory reading of the transcript shows that Biden self-destructed. Trump had very little to do with it. Not only that, Trump’s answers sometimes wandered aimlessly. He sounded like a loser.
“In a debate with Harris, he will have to be a lot more disciplined and smarter if he hopes to do her in. For some watchers, it doesn’t seem likely that someone as undisciplined as Trump can win against a media favorite. And it wasn’t just during the debate that his answers failed to inspire confidence…
“Trump is undisciplined and perhaps too old to change. On the other hand, he’s not stupid. The question is, can he be made to see what needs to be done? And then do it? Or will he self-destruct, like Biden? We’ll find out.”
In his piece, Oliver provides a couple interview snippets from a talk Trump had with Fox Businesses’ Maria Bartiromo where the candidate was given chances to articulate answers to a couple basic questions about the economy, tax policy and energy production, all of which, when reviewing the transcript, Trump wandered aimlessly off topic and served up some very cackling Kamala-like word salads.
I’ve noticed Trump’s tendency to do this. So have you. The candidate’s willingness to engage anyone anytime is commendable and admirable, but there are occasions when he appears to get so wrapped up on answering the question that what comes out only has a tangential connection to what he was asked. That’s not a good thing, and with only a couple months more to go until Election Day, he’ll have to tighten it up a bit.
To that end, I’ve got suggestions for how Trump might do just that. The candidate is lucky that, unlike cackling Kamala Harris, Trump has a thorough knowledge of the topics, has history on his side and has demonstrated a past ability to organize his thoughts into something that rivals coherency.
Number one, Trump should temper his exaggerations. Everyone knows Donald Trump is proud of his accomplishments, as well as he should be. But endlessly stating that he did such and such better than anyone or any president beforehand opens him up to criticism – and fact checkers. As a friend of mine pointed out after the June 27th debate, Trump would do himself a favor by stating, “In my opinion” before tossing out facts.
Example: The other night, Obama even poked fun at Trump’s seeming obsession with crowd size, clearly an allusion to the “size matters” meme that’s been going around American society for decades. Trump doesn’t need to overstate his large crowds because people understand that he draws big audiences. Why restate it?
Number two, when assessing questions from the media, stick to one topic at a time. When Trump receives a question from the news people, his tendency is to start answering the query on one issue and then morph into something different. Most politicians do this, but, again, approaching it this way opens him up to claims of lying by factcheckers.
Example: What will you do to bring down inflation? Clearly Trump wants to answer this subject by discussing his energy plans, but the basic message gets lost by changing the topic a few seconds into his discussion. “I want to drill, baby drill,” Trump would say, but he could clarify how lowering the oil price will impact upward price pressures.
Or bring in the easiest explanation of all, simply suggest that he’s going to cut out the Democrats’ excessive spending plans that led to the increases in the first place. Producing more energy won’t, by itself, lead to reduced prices. But cutting the Democrats’ desires to blow money on climate change boondoggles or more government bureaucracy will result in lower inflation for Americans.
Number three: find a better way to talk about abortion. It’s not like Trump doesn’t know the question is coming because it’s all the Democrats feel like talking about. Democrats can’t discuss illegal immigration or inflation or the economy or energy exploration – unless they’re mentioning “renewable energy” or “green jobs” or holding down “climate change” – so they’ve confined themselves to attacking the Supreme Court while defending “women’s reproductive health.”
Reality: Abortion is a brutal, violent, life-ending act. It’s become way too clean in today’s culture.
Trump seems to have settled on couching abortion as a state’s rights subject, a sanitary way to address the elimination of a life. But rather than avoid the matter, Trump could simply ask Harris to explain what an abortion is, or what limits should be placed on what is allowable. This still won’t convince the most radicalized to adopt a more reasonable position, but require Democrats to clarify where they stand.
Democrats have gone from saying abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” to advocating no limits at all. This is not a majority opinion. There isn’t a consensus on where the limit should be. But it’s not zero. There’s ground to be made in the middle.
One way or another, Trump could stand to stop equivocating and settle on a position.
Lastly, what’s so funny? Trump has said plenty about Kamala Harris’s cackling laugh and made fun of her. Why not ask what Kamala finds so funny? This way, wouldn’t Trump put the impetus on her to explain why she’s cackling all the time? Can you imagine Barack Obama or senile Joe Biden giggling like Kamala does?
With the parties having concluded their grand conventions, both presidential operations will now shift into the final phase of campaign 2024. With debates and town halls on the calendar and hundreds of rallies to attend – and the grassroots to motivate – neither side will rest until it’s over. Even then, it might not be done. Let the fall campaign commence.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz
Comments