Dang! Did you notice the way she was looking directly at Trump the entire time and maintained her composure even when he was calling her a Marxist and insulting her father!
Kamala must’ve practiced that ever-present grin and made sure to take each one of his insults and laugh at it! She’s the bigger person! Trump was petty, easily perturbed and childish! It was like at the Democrat convention last month – people were filled with joy! Barack Obama was funny! That crack he made about Trump’s “size” – well, that’s got to be worth a few hundred thousand votes, doesn’t it?
Or maybe it could be said that Democrats always go overboard with their jabs. They’re terrific at making fun of people but they don’t know when to stop. Post-debate polls definitely play this out. And oh yeah, a second (are there more involved?) unbalanced leftist took it as an opportunity to make another assassination attempt.
Many, many conservatives were upset at Trump’s lack of discipline during the hour and a half when the stage lights were on last Tuesday night, but they failed to account for how Americans would perceive the other candidate’s behavior.
In essence, many voters weren’t thrilled by Harris’s and the moderators’ beat-down strategy either. In an opinion piece titled “Taunting Trump might not have been what undecided voters wanted to see from Harris”, W. James Antle III wrote at the Washington Examiner last week:
“The disconnect might well be that what Harris accomplished in the debate — zinging Trump, avenging Biden’s candidacy-ending loss, defending abortion — did more to excite voters already committed to her, while exasperating Republicans who wish the former president was more disciplined, than it did to attract angry and disaffected undecideds.
“Exciting the Democratic base, demoralizing Republicans, and getting positive post-debate headlines aren’t bad things for a candidate locked in a close race. The RealClearPolitics national polling average has Harris up by 1.5 points. But it might not be the knockout blow she seeks.
“Predebate polling suggested that voters were looking for additional information about Harris much more than Trump, who at this point is a familiar figure whose foibles are well worn. It’s possible that the voters Harris needed to convince won’t be reached by the same kind of debate moments that titillate partisan Democrats and political professionals of all stripes.”
Voters don’t like obnoxious male candidates – and that’s the reason why Trump’s un-popularity endures among the people, like my father-in-law, who suggested that the 45th president “pisses him off”. Yet these people will vote for Trump because they know Trump’s issue emphasis is much better than Kamala’s.
While this group doesn’t take to hardline male contenders, they similarly don’t like overly aggressive women candidates, either. Antle was right-on in implying that Kamala’s fans were titillated by her less-than-gentle handling of their hated enemy – Trump. But the people who like substance in their leaders regardless of their gender weren’t swayed.
Woman candidate? Who cares!
It’s a little strange that Democrats are so gung-ho about having a female candidate – and that cackling Kamala could therefore be the first female president because Crooked Hillary’s dramatic flameout in 2016 most definitely left the “glass ceiling” very much un-shattered – because it seems clear, if history is a guide, that you need the right kind of woman runner to make a credible go of it.
Feminists won’t take kindly to me saying so, but women candidates are usually viewed differently – because they’re women. Americans of both genders – and maybe even the genders that aren’t obvious – are open to voting for a woman to be president. Conservatives have maintained it for years, but whatever genitals a human being happens to possess isn’t determinative of the quality of one’s candidacy.
Conservatives love having a tough, principled woman in a position of power, but they couldn’t care less about advancing a female’s career just for the sake of placing her in authority. Everyone knows Ronald Reagan was a beloved American leader, but perhaps the defining political relationship of his time in the Oval Office was with Margaret Thatcher.
Reagan’s meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev got the headlines back then and retain them now because the establishment news media still harbors a soft spot for the communist who presided over the fall of the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev did indeed “tear down that wall” – eventually – but he wouldn’t have done it if the Soviet Union hadn’t already been on its way out, defeated in the arms and public relations race by Reagan’s unflinching anti-Communist principles and the powerful U.S. military of the 1980’s.
The Gipper’s close association with Thatcher endured, and changed the world, because Thatcher herself was so unique. Margaret was a lady in all aspects of the word – but she was tough. And Thatcher’s toughness was a centerpiece in her governing style. Reagan and she got along so well because they were political soulmates. Thatcher’s legacy persists because she didn’t use her femininity to excel.
Margaret Thatcher was respected – and earned that respect – by her principles, not because she was a “she” or was the first of her kind, etc. As I always used to tell my kids, it’s okay to like or dislike a person because of “who” they are, but not due to “what” he or she is.
This is the reason why the so-called “gender gap” is so wide today. Democrats exploit the fact that women – especially single women – are so partial to cackling Kamala Harris, and Hillary Clinton before her. It’s why Democrats work so hard to convince women they need abortion in order to function in life, and why Republicans are portrayed (by Democrats) as evil by attempting to deny them a “fundamental right” of command over their bodies.
Trump didn’t say it in last week’s debate, and most Republican politicians would shy away from directly asking a leftist freak like Kamala to explain herself, but how many female humans are actually restricted by an existing abortion law? Democrats often talk about women being harmed by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but what are the numbers? Where are these legions of angry fems who are furious about real abortion laws in the states?
The famous “Jane Doe” of Roe vs. Wade infamy had to carry her baby to term. What contemporary female has to do the same today? If a woman wants an abortion in twenty-first century America, doesn’t she have options? Isn’t there some corporation or NGO or liberal organization that would put up the money to fly this desperate soul to a blue state for her to undergo the procedure?
Facts are stubborn things (thank you John Adams), but are there any women in this land that MUST bear a child against their will? So, in other words, the abortion issue holds this nation hostage over the possibility a woman might be inconvenienced by a pregnancy. Democrats want “access” to abortion, but they also require the ability to get one down the street at a Planned Parenthood clinic – or by prescription in pill form.
This “convenience” factor is what motivates liberals in 2024, and why they so strongly champion leftist politicians. Margaret Thatcher, if you compared her issue positions with her American friend, probably didn’t differ that much from Reagan (I haven’t done a straight comparison, but it’s a guess). Today’s liberal “The View” watchers wouldn’t consider Thatcher a “real” woman the way that today’s left-believing African-Americans don’t think of Clarence Thomas or Byron Donalds or Ben Carson as “real” black people.
But they are. And their principled stances endear them to everyone in the population, including men and women.
Therefore, Democrats shouldn’t automatically assume Kamala’s substance-less “joy” is necessarily working for them in an electoral sense. They also should not take it for granted that women candidates will be given a pass for behaving the way Harris did a week ago. Democrats apparently haven’t learned the lesson that Crooked Hillary Clinton suffered a voter backlash when she didn’t embody feminine qualities in 2016.
Again, Margaret Thatcher was loved because of her principles and issue positions, not because she happened to be a woman. Thatcher was strong, but she wasn’t mean. Kamala Harris isn’t tough, she’s just skilled at memorizing embarrassing facts and presenting them in a manner that inflicts maximum damage in a debate setting.
Kamala’s first one-on-one interview (wearing high-top sneakers no less) a couple days after the Philadelphia debate proves it. She’s a nimrod. Body language is everything. She doesn’t know what to do with her hands when she’s seated. Harris looks as though she’s never been forced to sit for a job interview, which she probably hasn’t.
It may be a double-standard, but male candidates don’t have to worry about such things. They are free to be as tough and hard-hitting as they choose to be without fear of it being held against them. Some male Democrats downplay the stereotype, but few outright reject it. It’s unlikely that Maragaret Thatcher worried about being too tough, but Hillary Clinton should’ve been apprehensive about being seen as “too mean”.
Remember in the 2008 Democrat primaries when Barack Obama earned lasting fame by addressing the Hillary Clinton likability question? He essentially said, “Hillary is likable enough”. Talk about being viewed differently because of her gender status.
Democrats have not learned that most Americans – especially men – appreciate feminine qualities in female candidates and don’t count it against them when their principles are in the right place. But they don’t like haggish harpies, either. Thinking she possesses a license to act the way she did a week ago ultimately hurt Kamala.
But Democrats still think Americans loved it.
Everyone knows Donald Trump is constantly judged because of what he is – a successful career business leader who’s accomplished much of what he’s done because of sheer force of will. Kamala Harris is also being judged by her personality, but with many fewer checks on her resume. A little humility would benefit Harris as she travels the campaign trail. That, and some policy substance.
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
The overall problem Democrats have is one of being shallow. They depend on factors such as gender, color, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. to the exclusion of policy, substance, and real history. Those policies that they espouse are simplistic. They think that the only way to protect people is to take away their guns. They think that the way to help people is to give them free money in one form or another. They think the only method of birth control is abortion. As Ronald Reagan said, "the only problem with liberals is that everything they know is wrong". Sorry if I mangled that a bit.