Don’t look now, ABC moderators, but your bias was showing, and it was ugh-ly.
Podcaster Megyn Kelly said, “These moderators are a disgraceful failure and this is one of the most biased, unfair debates I have ever seen. Shame on you @ABC.”
Ben Shapiro echoed that assessment describing them as “a disgrace to their profession.”
David Muir and Linsey Davis pushed back against Trump multiple times when they believed he dodged a question. Not so much with Harris, their horse in the race. When dodgy Kamala was asked if she thought Americans were better off economically today than they were four years ago, she bobbed and weaved like Muhammad Ali. In two minutes and 330 words, she said not one word responsive to Muir’s first question–not one. And what did Muir do? He moved on to Trump like any good Democrat apparatchik would do.
Muir and Davis “clarified” only statements made by Trump—none made by Harris. For example, they failed to “clarify” Harris’ deceitful “Charlottesville” comment. They failed to “clarify” Harris’ deceitful “bloodbath” comment. They failed to “clarify” that Trump never has had any connection to Project 2025.
Muir should have offered a “clarification” of Linsey Davis’s assertion that “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill the baby after it’s born.” Muir could have clarified that in May 2023, Walz signed legislation that changed a key word in a 47-year-old Minnesota abortion law. For almost half a century this law stated that “a live child born as a result of an abortion. … shall be [i.e., must be] taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”
Take note of the changes Walz endorsed:
medicalcare.
A born aliveAn infantas a result of an abortionwho is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice … shall be taken by the responsible medical personnelto preserve the life and health of the born alive infantcare for the infant who is born alive.
No longer are medical personnel required to try to preserve the life of infants born alive after failed efforts to kill them. Now medical personnel are required only to “care” for those infants.
If someone were to bring home a newborn, lay it on a table or hold and rock it but not feed it or provide any medical treatment, decent people with respect for human rights would call that killing a baby after it’s born.
Pre-debate rumors abounded that Kamala was urged to goad and antagonize Trump. Clearly those rumors were true. She was a nasty, grimacing shrew all night long. And haughty to boot.
The morning after the debate, National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote this: “[Harris] appeared poised, calm, cool, collected—the experienced prosecutor. Trump was a teapot boiling over—fuming, scowling, and shouting through most of the night.”
Weird—no mention of cool, calm, cool, collected Kamala’s smirking, head-shaking, and haughty mugging at Trump with gimlet eyes.
The most egregious and offensive irony of the night had to be when Harris accused Trump of being divisive and obsessed with race:
I think it’s a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the American people. … I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us. And we don’t want this kind of approach that is just constantly trying to divide us, and especially by race. … And I think the American people want better than that. … Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don’t want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.
Oh, wow.
Which party has an irrational fetish about race and sex. Which party has promoted Critical Race Theory, “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion”—central to all of which is division based on race? Which party discriminates based on race and sex in hiring, college admissions, and awarding of loans and college scholarships? Which party tells Americans that if they’re white, or male, or heterosexual, they’re oppressors?
Feigning sincerity and ignorance, David Muir asked about Trump’s comment regarding Harris’ race. Surely, Muir and anyone out of middle school understands that Trump’s comment wasn’t about her race. It was about her shapeshifting pandering to whomever is standing in front of her. She’ll use race, accents, and maudlin hugging if it will get her a vote.
When, in discussing legalized human slaughter, Harris referred nine times to a woman’s “body,” why didn’t Muir or Linsey clarify that when a woman gets pregnant, there are two bodies—not one—involved.
And why didn’t they ask Harris this: When the right of one human to control her reproduction comes into direct conflict with the right of another human to live, which right is a right of a higher moral order and why?
Harris tried to portray herself as the visionary who “can chart a new way forward.” Riiight, she, who has been in office running the country into the ground for 3 1/2 years, is the change agent. Got it.
Trump is not now, nor ever has been an eloquent public speaker. Americans fell for unctuous oratory when they elected the dishonest, divisive Barack Obama, and where did that get us?
Ordinary Americans support Trump because he speaks like they do and for many other reasons, including his policies that will improve the economy; secure the border; make America energy-independent; rebuild respect for the rule of law and police; secure public safety, restore international peace, safeguard the integrity of the Supreme Court, and protect minors from bodily mutilation by the profiteering “trans” industrial complex.
Trump has proven he can do these things. Harris has proven she can’t and won’t.
And let’s not forget that Trump’s vice-presidential pick, J.D. Vance is far superior to the obsequious, Commie-sympathizing goofball who believes socialism is equivalent to “neighborliness” that Harris handpicked to be her VP (veeps of a feather…).
I guess Kamala is authentic. She is an authentically smug, inept, unpleasant, pandering, shapeshifting, grimacing termagant who follows orders.
