Share This Article with a Friend!

Presidential Horse Race 2016: Imagining a world under Hillary’s “implicitly biased” thought police

With so many media members concentrating on how badly (according to them) Donald Trump handled the back-and-forth with Hillary Clinton during their debate on Monday night, few have bothered to mention the vital verbal missteps the Democrat nominee made herself.

As I mentioned in my debate review the other day, in Hillary’s very first answer of the evening she said she favored “equal pay for women’s work”, clearly stumbling over her oft employed socialistic proposal of mandating Hillary Clinton campeveryone is paid the same regardless of merit or circumstances. What if Trump had used the phrase “women’s work” during one of his answers? The press would be all over it. It would get almost as much play as Hillary-supporting former Miss Universe Alicia Machado has gotten in the past few days (more on this below).

But Hillary said another thing that to me was eye-popping in its seriousness, namely her stating that everyone has implicit bias when it comes to racial relations. That’s a mighty alarming thing to blurt out, yet the press has barely even touched on it.

David French writes at National Review, “Let’s be very clear: When it moves from abstract to concrete, all this talk about ‘implicit bias’ gets very sinister, very quickly. It allows radicals to indict entire communities as bigoted, it relieves them of the obligation of actually proving their case, and it allows them to use virtually any negative event as a pretext for enforcing their ideological agenda…

“If you don’t believe what the radicals think you should believe, you must be taught to believe something different — on the government’s dime, of course. Hillary wants to fund the retraining, and the NAACP wants to make it mandatory — complete with sanctions if your perceived biases don’t disappear.”

This goes way beyond mere public shaming for violations of political correctness, folks. This conjures up images of government reeducation camps where we’re all herded up by goons with scary looking guns, locked in big rooms with flickering movie screens and forced to endure propaganda films until we’re sufficiently brainwashed into saying “With Hillary Clinton everyone is equal and we’re stronger together.”

Most of what the Democrats spout these days can be passed off as a balloon full of harmless gas playing to the weak of mind, but this “implicit bias” stuff is truly dangerous.

When Hillary speaks of federally funding re-training for local police forces, where does it end? If the rest of us – in her words, everyone -- are biased too, does that mean the Labor Department is going to mandate sensitivity “anti-bias” training in every American workplace?

All of these policies would be backed up and affirmed by Hillary and Obama’s appointments to the federal judiciary and Supreme Court, of course. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will lead a new federal commission on racial bias. If you don’t conform, get ready to wear an orange jumpsuit with a number on the back. Back to reeducation camp for you, friend.

Hillary will release the terrorists from Guantanamo and put “terminally biased” people in their places.

Perhaps you think this “vision” is a bit extreme, but what we’re dealing with here is earthshattering in its potential repercussions. When Hillary and the feds think that our thought patterns could lead to criminal acts, there’s no limit to what they will do to save us from ourselves.

What is worse, calling one person fat or tens of millions deplorable?

Amidst all the post-event hype and the over-the-top commentary that resulted from Monday night’s first presidential debate, it’s sometimes difficult to remember there was at least some substance to what the candidates discussed.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton did converse about how they’d improve the economy, handle nuclear proliferation and even deliberated a little bit about tax policy -- you know, the stuff candidates are supposed to talk about.

Then, in the last few moments of the program, Crooked Hillary brought up a comment Trump made about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado twenty years ago. The media can’t stop obsessing over it now.

Jonathan Easley of The Hill reports, “A brief exchange over a former beauty queen has become the biggest story to emerge from this week’s presidential debate, putting Donald Trump’s campaign on the defensive with more than a month to go until the election…

“[T]he Democratic nominee and her allies had clearly planned the moment, releasing a video that featured Machado roughly an hour after the debate ended.”

It’s only gotten worse from there as Machado’s face has been all over the place on TV since Tuesday. Not even stories about her incredibly checkered past have dampened the controversy.

It’s sick how disproportionate this all is. Donald Trump calls one woman fat twenty years ago and the media can’t get away from it. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls tens of millions of Americans “deplorable” a few weeks ago and the media doesn’t even mention it now.

And what about the fact that Hillary likely compromised national security by insisting on using her own email server to hide from public scrutiny? Is that more important than a fat-shaming remark Trump made two decades ago?

That’s how ridiculous all of this is, and if some in the American electorate are shallow enough to discount a presidential candidate because of such irrelevant concerns, than I truly fear for the future of this country.

But no matter how ignorant some of the voters happen to be it’s shameful that the media can’t seem to treat subjects with proportionality. No wonder Rush Limbaugh calls it the “drive by media” because what is supposed to pass for responsible journalism and reporting on the presidential race has devolved into sensationalism and tabloid garbage.

I’m beginning to think if the media is going to continue this outrage then statements Bill Clinton’s accusers made twenty years ago about the Clinton family cover-up need to be reintroduced into the public discourse as well.

If we’re all getting down into the mud, nobody’s going to be clean afterwards.

We can only hope that next week’s vice presidential debate and subsequent events will restore some sanity to the news pages. And then we can get back down to the real issues at hand.

Everyone has an opinion on how Donald Trump can improve for the next debate

With the buzz about Monday night’s first presidential debate having barely died down, already people are starting to turn their attention towards round two of the great Trump vs. Clinton battle of the microphones.

The second debate will take place a week from Sunday (October 9) at Washington University in St. Louis. According to the stale description provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates, it will be in the “form of a town meeting, in which half of the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources. The candidates will have two minutes to respond and there will be an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate further discussion. The town meeting participants will be uncommitted voters selected by the Gallup Organization.”

(Note: The vice presidential debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine will take place next Tuesday in Farmville, Virginia)

It will be fascinating to see how the competitors handle a town hall-type meeting where you actually have to leave your designated space to interact not only with the audience and the moderator, but also come into close proximity with your opponent.

For a smooth operator like Barack Obama, this particular format was ideal, allowing him to slither around the room lying directly to people’s faces which he’s become so accustomed to doing throughout his life. “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” Sure, Barack, we believe you.

As someone who would never-ever consider voting for him, I still acknowledge that Obama came across well in such a scenario.

But I feel just as comfortable in saying Hillary doesn’t have the same presence. If her performance in the Commander in Chief forum a few weeks ago is any indication, Hillary will attempt to do the same thing as Obama, jutting to all parts of the stage to try and relate to people on their level. It won’t work because as I’ve said many times before, about seventy percent of the people see “liar” and “untrustworthy” whenever she opens her mouth.

Of course what people see in Trump when he begins to talk isn’t necessarily much more flattering, but as an entertainer, I would think he’d be able to establish a rapport with the portion of the audience that is open to hearing what he has to say. Time will tell.

In the meantime, Trump’s advisors are hoping he’ll do a few things differently the next time around.

Gabby Morrongiello of the Washington Examiner reports, “Donald Trump's performance in the first presidential debate has been met with mixed reviews by Republicans. Some have criticized the GOP nominee for not sufficiently preparing for the 90-minute event, causing him to deliver incoherent answers and unflattering soundbites. Others have said he satisfied their expectations, but could have prosecuted the case against Hillary Clinton more effectively.

“Nonetheless, in conversations with Republican strategists who support Trump, some of whom played a role in his campaign, there seemed to be a broad consensus that the Manhattan real estate mogul can and should do better the next time he and Clinton meet on the debate stage.”

According to Morrongiello’s article, the strategists’ advice includes:

1. Enter with a plan, such as preparing in advance ten things he wants to say that evening;
2. Hit Clinton harder, paying particular attention to her spotted record;
3. Go beyond the questions, finding a way to work in important material even if it isn't specifically asked for;
4. Don't take the bait. Don't interrupt Hillary and don't allow her to choose the subject matter to discuss.

These are all common sense approaches to debating that go along with practicing more and developing a strategy. Looking back, during the Republican primary season Trump certainly did tend to rebound after a particularly bad debate outing, so I would expect to see a much different, calmer, softer talking version of the GOP nominee in St. Louis.

As an example of Trump’s ability to adapt, the February 13 debate in South Carolina was particularly contentious with Trump visibly angry and turning red during exchanges with Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. All in all, it was probably his worst debate performance ever and at the time, I thought maybe he was starting to break under the pressure of being the party frontrunner.

Not so. Trump was much calmer in the subsequent debate in Houston, Texas, even when he was caught in the middle of a two-pronged attack from rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I expect we’ll see the “gentle” Donald against Hillary next week.

As probably would be expected, Trump isn’t the only one receiving criticism for the way he handled Monday’s debate. Moderator (NBC anchor) Lester Holt is continuing to take heat over his biased favoritism towards Hillary, leading one observer to call for a change in the way debates are moderated.

The Hoover Institute’s Bill Whalen writes in Real Clear Politics, “In the past four elections, all presidential debates have had a lone moderator. As Holt and Matt Lauer have discovered, moderators may be in a no-win situation. Press Trump, as Holt did, and his followers will scream bias. Go easier on Trump, as Lauer did at an NBC forum earlier this month, and Clinton’s followers will decry slipshod journalism.

“My suggestion: return to the days when the moderator could fall back on fellow journalists to ask questions instead of going it alone – for 2016, my choices would be Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal, Robert Costa of The Washington Post, USA Today’s Susan Page and NPR’s Mara Liasson.”

I won’t add any names to Whalen’s list but a couple come to mind. But no matter who’s on such a panel, I think Whalen is right. With the primary debates as a guide, for every John Harwood (the truly awful moderator from CNBC in the late October debate) there’s a Brett Baier (from Fox News) waiting to do a good and fair job as part of a panel.

If one of the moderators is horrible, the others on the panel can make up for it.

Of course to some of Trump’s fiercest #NeverTrump critics, it doesn’t matter in the slightest how much he would prepare because he can do no right with that crowd.

Susan Wright screeds at RedState, “Trump needs to show a higher level of seriousness, but he won’t, because he’s not a serious candidate.

“He’s a reality TV star with aspirations that are higher than doing another season of ‘The Apprentice.’ He’s delegated all the real work and done little but serve as the public face of a brand for years. Now he’s in a position where he sinks or swims on his own work ethic, and he’s floundering.”

Questioning Trump’s work ethic? That’s a new one. First Wright chastises Trump for keeping such an ambitious schedule that he doesn’t have time to practice for the debate, then she tears into him for being lazy and not wanting to practice. You can’t have it both ways.

Here’s thinking Trump will show up at the next debate ready to go, enthused and prepared. As the ultimate competitor, Trump doesn’t take criticism well. He’ll no doubt do better next time.

Trump’s transition team preparing to change the course of the country

Finally today, in the first section I talked about Hillary’s “implicit bias” comment and all of the truly scary potential implications from the Democrat elites’ labeling of everyone as inherently racist.

This should frighten all of us.

Behind the scenes Donald Trump is assembling his transition team with a collection of individuals who should scare liberals, because they’re filling in the policy details for a Republican administration that would truly represent a departure from the current direction.

Andrew Restuccia and Sarah Wheaton of Politico report, “While the Republican's campaign is marked by light staffing, a scant policy agenda and the nominee’s gut-instinct style on the stump, the Trump transition team led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has assembled nearly 100 advisers who are weighing details on issues ranging from taxes and national security to decisions on which Obama administration policies should be quickly overturned, according to people familiar with its inner workings.

“In contrast, Clinton’s transition team is still largely bare bones — one Democrat who has met with it said it has about 20 staffers, including part-timers. Her policy agenda has already been substantially mapped out over the past year by the hundreds of people advising her sprawling campaign network, so the transition is moving at a low-key pace while Clinton World focuses on the final weeks of the presidential contest.”

Seeing as this is a Politico story, it’s certainly slanted towards a narrative of “a lot of people are still very hesitant to work with Trump,” “everyone still thinks Hillary is going to win” and “Clinton’s policy details have been hashed out throughout the campaign and over years of public service.”

It wouldn’t be the media without implying Trump’s people are just a bunch of job-seeking hapless dolts who don’t have anything better to do than spend time on an effort that most likely won’t come to fruition anyway.

It gets tiring reading this stuff sometimes.

But from what I could gather, seeing as Chris Christie is leading Trump’s transition team, there will certainly be a party establishment presence in the new Trump administration. But the article also indicates a lot of former Bush people have not yet been contacted about working for the new president, which gives me hope that there will be a lot of new – and conservative – blood in places of authority to begin the work of reducing the size and scope of government.

We won’t know if this will happen unless Trump wins, but one thing’s for sure – the #NeverTrump people probably won’t get far in knocking on the door of the transition office. They’ll be isolated as they are now, alone on some island with nothing but a computer to air their grievances.

Share this