Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Presidential Debates Work Better If the Moderator Doesn't Help the Democrat

by Al Benson Jr.

Presidential debates are hardly my favorite source of entertainment or of information for that matter. Elections are often fraudulent and rigged and so are presidential debates. They are part of what has been dubbed "political theater" by Lew Rockwell. In fact he has a section on his web site www.lewrockwell.com called "political theater."

On our way into church last Sunday morning one of our church members asked me something to the effect of "Do you plan to watch the political mockery tomorrow night?" I can't disagree with his assessment. I've watched enough political debates over the years to know that they are hardly instruments of revealed truth.

If you have two candidates, one of which is supposed to be conservative and patriotic while the other one is a screaming cultural Marxist, you have to know going in, that the moderator and the cultural Marxist are going to work together and gang up on the conservative. It's standard operating procedure. They did it to Mitt Romney when he debated Comrade Obama before the 2012 election charade, not that Romney was any kind of real conservative, but, bad as he was, he made chopped liver out of Obama in their first debate. Obama didn't have his teleprompter and without that he was dead in the water. He had four or five stock lines and all he could do throughout the debate (not possessing an original thought of his own) was to find different ways of restating those stock lines. In their second debate you can be sure the teleprompter was there and the moderator helped Obama carry the debate load with his commentary. By this time Romney knew the game and just played along--the loyal "opposition" as it were.

I hadn't planned on watching this current charade but a friend living in the town I live in invited me over to his house to watch it. When he had lived in the North he had belonged to the Tea Party and so I figured he's pretty much be on the same page as I was, and he is.

And the debate between Trump and "Hillary the unindicted" was a carbon copy of most of the ones I have watched previously. The moderator, Lester Holt bent over backwards to give Hillary as much help as he could possibly give without totally giving himself away and he badgered Trump as much as he could get by with and gave Hillary as much extra time to present her points as he could while restricting Trump to his allotted time. Mr. Holt was in Hillary's corner and that was plain to see. Objective he was not and even his pretense of it was shallow.

Noted libertarian author Tom DiLorenzo had it figured out also and he noted in brief commentary on www.lewrockwell.com that Hillary's running mate had said that: "He hopes the moderator, Lester Holt, will expose Trump's 'lies' while at the same time giving Hitlery time to express her 'vision' for America."

He further said: "This is a warning to Lester Holt from the Clinton Crime Family: Don't do what Matt Lauer did and ask questions and then let the candidate respond to the questions. Badger him, challenge everything he says, insinuate that he is a liar or a buffoon (or better yet, both), interrupt him, while allowing Queen Hitlery to be her good old visionary self. Or else, Lester." I would say Lester responded to the prompting quite well. He was going to make sure he didn't end up being chopped liver.

And so "Queen Hitlery" made her points for her vision for America (no guns for Americans but lots of aliens (preferably illegal) for Americans, although she didn't quite say it that way. If you have learned to understand Marxist doublespeak you know what she was talking about. It was almost as if Mr. Trump had been cautioned not to fight back, a persona that is at odds with where he usually is. I hope this was just a learning experience for him and not something worse, because if it ends up being something worse then you can kiss the country goodbye, and your God-given liberties will be chopped liver.

No comments: