Trae Crowder: It's a Wild World

The Liberal Redneck recaps last night's VP debate between Walz and Vance.

CBS provides highlights from the hour-and-a-half debate:

 

Rachel Maddow and other political commentators react:

-----

Election Convictions, Predictions, and Fictions

Screen shot from Voice of America report at a debate-watching party in a restaurant.  The video can be seen on Wikipedia here.

Well, despite my reservations expressed in yesterday's post, all the left-of-center journo types are still shouting hallelujah over Kamala's performance, and the repubs are crying and whining about "unfair moderators" - "it was three against one" - so I guess the debate was a win for Kamala.  It still bugs me, though, that she evaded several very direct questions about her change of mind on certain policies, and offered no coherent, large-scale plan for her presidency.  And though she expessed her commitment to democracy and the rule of law, there was no stand-up-and-cheer moment, no clarion call to arms, which  I suppose is what I was hoping for.

Election campaigns are always more show than substance.  Even some of our greatest presidents got into the White House not solely because they were wise and honest men, but because they were great showmen too.  

But for someone who had no idea of campaigning for the presidency two months ago, I think Kamala did her best - and did it damn well.  She's smart, articulate, experienced in national politics and foreign affairs, and, I believe, sincere in her allegiance to the Constituion and all that we expect a president to do and be.  And of course, she is the only candidate we've got - the only candidate worthy of the office.  So I support her 100 percent, and I hope all my truckbuddies will, too.  A victory for Trump and his legion of snarling trolls would mean the end of the American experiment, and I hope I don't live to see that.

- - - 0 0 0 - - -

There's been so much commentary since the debate that I couldn't decide on a video to post today, so here's a potpourri you can choose from - some serious, some ridiculous, but each one has a noteworthy nugget or two of information or reaction.  A snapshot of America at this historic moment.  Enjoy.

 

You'll be amazed when you see what a sexy hunk this old guy was fifty years ago; and he's still going strong - mentally and physically:

 

And just for laughs, here's a very creative re-do of the debate - I won't say musical, because it hurts my old ears, but very creative nevertheless:

-----

First Harris-Trump Debate, 9/10/24: Who Won?

Screen shot from the ABC News telecast of the debate.

The first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump took place last night at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, hosted by ABC News and moderated by reporters David Muir and Linsey Davis.  The debate was televised live with no audience in the hall.  The Boston Globe gives some highlights of the nearly two-hour debate:

 

In case anyone who missed it wants to watch the whole debate, it's available from ABC News here.

What I Say: I was disapointed in Kamala's performance; I say that knowing she must have been under tremendous pressure to perform well, and no doubt prepared arduously for this debate. All the talking heads on the Left are jubilant this morning, saying she "cleaned Trump"s clock" and suchlike. She spoke well, and she got in a few zingers, true. But five minutes in, I was shouting at the TV screen:  Answer the question, for God's sake!

To me, the whole thing was rather like watching Eleanor Roosevelt debate Al Capone. She was nice, and he was nasty. She came across as very smart, very articulate, and very high-minded, which warmed every Democrat's heart.  She did not descend to Trump's level, which was right; but time and again I thought her answers were vague, evasive generalities that changed nobody's mind or vote.  (Where is Joan Crawford when you need her?)

What would have changed minds and votes? I don't know, exactly. I just feel that Trump's rhetoric was simple, direct, and forceful - things any old shitkicker could understand, and many would cheer. Harris's approach, on the other hand, was to my way of thinking a bit abstract, a bit muddled, a bit lofty, a bit Elizabeth Warren-ish. That don't sit well with the plain folks, and there are millions of 'em.

Yes, Kamala said a lot of things to Trump's face that all of us sensible people have wanted to say for years; but what did that accomplish? Criticism rolls off him like water off a duck's back. What did Kamala say that made anyone want to vote for her, as distinct from voting against Trump? 

Now, maybe I'm all wet, and she really did trounce him in the debate. But I was listening expectantly to hear something that would get the attention of the folks who live all over the very red state of Texas - and not just the rural areas, either. And I didn't hear it. 

Perhaps I am too critical;  I do dearly want Harris and Walz to win this election, and Trump to just blow away like the tumbleweeds far out in the West Texas nothingness.  Maybe Kamala did do just fine; but maybe my down-home intuition is right.  I guess we'll see what happens.

What did you think of the debate, my truckbuddies? I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  

P. S. -- Whoa now.  That David Muir is a fine journalist.  Never heard of him before, but I sure did like what I saw:  smart, strong, suave, and not too bad looking, either.  

Actually, I thought both he and Linsey Davis did an excellent job as moderators, despite Trump's continual mike-hogging.  They both fact-checked him a number of times, in a calm and dignified way.  Excellent.

-----

Debate Wrap-Up

1.

2.




See also this cartoon.

Not the Real World

Via Towleroad, on the Dan Savage-Brian Brown dinner that was moderated by a reporter from the New York Times at Dan's house - emphasis mine:

After the dinner was over and the wine had worn off, Oppenheimer asked the participants, including Savage's spouse Terry Miller, about their shared experience. It seems no one truly enjoyed themselves, and Savage wishes he had held the event on neutral ground.

Mr. Miller pronounced the entire night a waste of time. “Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty,” Mr. Miller wrote in an e-mail. “In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.”

I spoke with Mr. Brown by phone, and he seemed to agree that the setting had made little difference. “There’s this myth that folks like me, we don’t know any gay people, and if we just met them, we would change our views,” he said. “But the notion that if you have us into your house, that all that faith and reason that we have on our side, we will chuck it out and change our views — that’s not the real world.”

As for Mr. Savage, he felt that being on his home turf had actually worked against him. “Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest,” he said. “It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should’ve been. If I had it to do over again, I think I’d go with a hall.”

Brown is exactly right on the one point: the die-hard bigots, and they are legion, will never, ever change their minds about the gay. Not even if they live next door, not even if they are blood kin to you. That's not the real world - and I know, because I have lived it, and I've told you my stories here on the Blue Truck before.

Here's the complete video of the dinner debate. I can't stand to watch the whole thing, had to stop after a couple minutes of Brown's filthy, hateful talk. You might as well expect a confirmed Nazi to embrace the idea that Jews are human beings.  But if you can stomach the evil, here you go.



PS - You damn well better get your ass to the polls this November and vote Democratic. The fascists will certainly be casting their ballots en masse. Don't think what's happening in Russia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe can't happen here - you'd be surprised how very, very quickly your gay ass can be eliminated.

Live Coverage: Senate Vote on DADT

Watch history being made while you eat breakfast, or nurse that hangover:

Senate Works into the Weekend on Last-Minute Legislation C-SPAN

You can read the 6-page PDF text of H.B. 2965 ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010") here. Look up more info about the bill at Thomas.loc.gov (Library of Congress).


Live blog from your Head Trucker - times are EST:

12:31 - The final vote on DADT repeal will be at 3 p.m. today, Washington time. Between now and then, the floor is open to senators who want to speak on that or on the START treaty, or who knows what. I'm listening to them drone on - even the senators who get up to speak in favor of repeal seem to me to be wasting their breath, there's no point in bring up more examples and indignant reactions pro or con now: it all comes down to the yeas and nays. I'll report back later on how it all turns out at 3 o'clock.

12:20 - Whups, not over yet. Reid is asking for a vote today at 3 p.m., apparently. McCain is bickering over debate time and technicalities.

12:12 - I guess that's all for today on DADT. But what a relief. The Washington Post says:

Senators voted 63 to 33 go proceed to debate on the bill. Fifty-seven members of the Senate Democratic caucus and six Republicans -- Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio) -- voted yes. Four senators -- Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) -- did not vote.  [note from Russ:  Minich voted against repeal last week, but stayed home today.]

A final vote on the bill is expected Sunday; a simple majority is required for final passage.

New York Times:

“I don’t care who you love,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.”

Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying on Friday that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery on Monday for prostate cancer.

12:01 - The first vote, for a North Carolina judge, sailed through with a voice vote only. But now the second vote is being done by roll call, so it's another dragged-out process. BTW, McCain keeps talking about maimed soldiers but conveniently overlooks gay vets like Eric Alva, first Marine wounded in Iraq, who lost a leg and was given a medical discharge.

11:49 - Cloture on DADT repeal passes, 63-33. Hooray! So there can be no filibuster against it. Now they can move on to an actual vote on the bill itself. But inexplicably, they are now going to vote on a couple of judicial nominations - WTF??

11:46 - Clerk just read out, rather rapidly, a tally of yeas and nays by name, and I think I counted 60+ in favor - but some senators are still ambling up to the clerk's desk to vote, as the mood strikes them it seems.

11:35 - McCain, invoking the image of "Marines in Bethesda with no legs" says this is a sad day, putting lives at risk by letting all the queers ruin the military. Voting begins again, but this time the clerk is apparently calling the roll to start with - but again, some senators are up out of their seats, lounging around and chatting as before, so I don't know exactly how the vote works here. But crossing all my fingers and toes. Some senators are replying to the roll call from their seats, but I can't hear them via TV, so can't tell how it's going.

11:34 - Lieberman asks his colleagues to vote for fairness and support repeal of DADT.

11:31 - Cloture on the DREAM Act fails, 55-41, not having gotten 60 votes. What does this portend for DADT repeal?

11:30 - The cloture vote to limit debate on the DREAM Act (H.R. 5281) is underway. The voting procedure in the Senate is not at all like in the movies. There is no drama, no sense of moment. Instead of a momentous roll call, with each senator declaiming his aye or nay from his desk, everyone is up out of their seats, ambling around the chamber, chitchatting in small groups as you would at a church social. When somebody gets damn good and ready to vote, he or she sidles up to the clerk's desk and lets her know how to mark their vote. This has gone on for 25 minutes.

11:05 - Reid remembers a young woman who spoke to him and said, "My parents aren't citizens, so I can't go to college; what am I supposed to do with my life?" That and other such stories have haunted him, which is why the DREAM Act must be passed.

11:01 - Reid quotes Barry Goldwater: "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." SNAP!

10:59 - Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Majority Leader, says McConnell's fake concern about the democratic process "brings a big yawn to the American people." Snap, snap, SNAP! "To suggest there haven't been enough hearings on this is simply nonsensical."

10:56 - Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Minority Leader, says not allowing amendments on these two bills is denying Americans the democratic process, yada yada yada.

10:53 - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Majority Whip, speaks in favor of the DREAM Act, a "monumental" issue of fairness he has been working on for ten years. Showing pictures of young immigrants who will benefit from the DREAM Act. Says "the cause of justice is worth the politcal risk" of voting for this bill." All of which is well and good, but I wish they would just stick to DADT, which I'm focused on, and not mix the two topics up together; but maybe that's all to the good.

10:42 - McCain says "I'm aware this bill will probably pass today" - and liberals will rejoice tomorrow but "we are doing great damage" and probably "harm the battle effectiveness so vital to the survival of our young men and women." Yields the balance of his time.

10:36 - Here we go. Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gets 10 minutes to rant. Starts by asking if it's true that no amendments can be offered on either bill before the Senate; the chair says that's true. Then he starts in on how the Senate is defying the will of the American people as expressed in the recent election. And the will of the military leaders and the troops themselves, which will "cost Marines' lives" - and yada, yada, yada. "It isn't broke, don't fix it."

10:35 - Sen. Charles Shumer, D-N.Y., quotes de Tocqueville: "What makes America different from all other nations is that equality always prevails."

10:33 - Sen. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in a short but impassioned speech says both DADT repeal and the DREAM Act are about letting people who want to be part of the American fabric, do so.

10:28 - Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Minority Whip, is maundering on with ten reasons why the Senate should not pass the DREAM act and let the barbarian hordes overwhelm our borders.

10:22 - Sen. Feinstein, D-Calif., says the criteria for military service should be "courage, competence, and a willingness to serve." Also speaks in favor of the DREAM Act.

10:15 - Sen. Lieberman, I-Conn., in a somewhat rambling response says the bottom line is, repeal will make our best-in-the-world military even better.

10:04 - Sen. Saxby, D-Ga., says now is not the time to repeal the law, in the middle of a war. If we do, "250,000 soldiers and Marines will leave the service in short order" because they can't bear to fight alongside all them nasty queerz.

Does a moose have wings?

From the New York Times, emphasis mine:

"Thanks to the mainstream media, quite a low expectation has been created for her performance," said Ron Carey, chairman of Minnesota’s Republican Party. "The style of Sarah Palin is going to amaze people. She is going to be able to amaze people with the substance she is going to deliver."

Oh yeah. I just can't wait to be amazed with that. When moose fly.

The First Debate

Well, damned if the Old Man didn't pull it off, after all. In my view, it was McCain, 21-6.

Of course, I'm very disappointed; and somehow in the course of the debate I developed a raging headache.

It's not the words that were spoken. Both candidates were full of names, dates, facts, and figures. Both made cogent arguments and persuasive appeals.

It's not the words. It's the very different feelings the two men brought out in the viewer.

Obama was your very smart brother-in-law who went to college, has a good job, a new car, and a great jazz collection. You enjoy his company, and he can answer just about any question you ever ask. A really good guy, and his heart's in the right place.

But McCain was Dad. Yeah, he's getting up there now, and maybe he's a little behind the times in some ways. You don't always see eye to eye, and you don't visit as often as you should.

But. When trouble happens, when a crisis arises, when the chips are down--it's Dad you turn to. It's Dad who can always make things turn out all right, somehow. It's Dad you trust. It's Dad you love--who loves you. He doesn't have to say the words; you both just know.

That is how I think this debate was felt--not merely heard--by most of Middle America.

Steady at the helm. Experience counts for a hell of a lot, and it showed.

(Damn, I sure wish Hillary had been the nominee now.)

The difference between the candidates, as I've just described it, could be very significant, if the country is endangered in any way between now and Election Day.

And Palin? Oh, if McCain were elected, I've no doubt she would soon discover that her newborn with the special needs really demands all her care and attention; so (in a very slick piece of political choreography), she would do the right, the very, very noble thing, and resign the vice-presidency. Exit, stage right; lots of applause, lots of fond farewell wishes from the press and the public. Enter someone more capable. Done.

That's my impression of tonight's debate. Will be interesting to see what the pundits make of it tomorrow. Right now I feel ill, so good night from Texas.