Welcome to my blog. Here you will find information that is both interesting and useless. You can even see how Steve, my camera, sees the world through my eyes, or get your hands on my latest novel, Jihad Joe at:


Thanks for visiting. Hope you enjoyed the coffee and cake. Sorry we ran out of donuts.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Lester Holt: a closet liberal or a full-blown liberal?

Lester Holt may be a registered Republican, but it looks more like a coverup than his true political philosophy. He complied with the wishes of the Clinton campaign and while Trump blew it all by himself on several occasions, Hillary skated.

Holt called out Trump and interrupted him repeatedly, while Clinton got no questions about Benghazi or her emails. Trump, on the other hand, didn't bring it up when the issue of national security came up--that was his golden opportunity and he blew it.

The Clinton campaign gamed the system, according to the MRC (Media Research Center). Holt was in total compliance with their wishes. He pushed the birther issue, Trump's tax returns, and asked him about Clinton being "the first woman nominated by a party" and not having "the look."

The issue of the "deplorables" never once came up and Donald never went there--another big mistake.

It almost felt as if there was a conspiracy going on of a secret agreement between Trump and Clinton whereby he promised to give her the debate. Of course that's nonsense but Alex Jones will probably jump on that idea if it occurs to his paranoid brain. Can't you just see his lede: "Trump purposely throws the debate for Clinton--does she know something about him that she isn't telling?"

Dan Gainor of the MRC discussed six ways in which Clinton got to skate the debate and Holt was in the tank for the former Worst Lady.

First there's the issue of jobs. Holt shot two questions at Trump on how he planned to add jobs in spite of the fact that the first answer talked about renegotiating trade deals.

Next, Holt depicted the liberal tax plans where Clinton wanted to tax the rich and Trump supposedly was "calling for tax cuts for the wealthy." Trump had to correct him, which clearly showed Holt's bias.

On tax returns, Trump got slammed by Holt with questions on "business conflicts" but Hillary was never asked about her emails, her Goldman Sachs and other corporate speeches, or anything about Clinton Foundation business conflicts.

She was also never asked about money the Foundation received from misogynistic countries.

Fourth, Holt asked Trump about the "birther" question which went longer than Clinton's email answer and then asked Trump three separate follow-ups.

And fifth, he attacked Trump for supporting the Iraq War, never discussing how Clinton had voted to do the same. Also, it's important to realize that Trump wasn't privy to information about the Iraq situation whereas Clinton was and still voted for it. Holt never made that distinction either.

Finally, Holt asked Clinton about whether the police in the US are biased against African-Americans. She answered "I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police." Holt ignored the gaffe rather than challenge her wide brushstroke about everyone being bigoted.

I believe that Holt must have taken his cue as moderator from Candy Crowley. He was like a third debater and failed miserably, but so did Donald Trump.

Trump missed golden opportunities to destroy Clinton's position in the debate. When she accused him of being chummy with Putin, he might have replied, "I think he knows more about you, Hillary, just from reading through your emails."

It should never be the role of journalists to be the ones to make the news, anymore than an umpire or referee should determine the outcome of a game. Both sides need to be prepared, know the facts and challenge lies. It is never up to journalists to determine what is truth and what is lie.

Sometimes I wish the candidates could bring along YouTube video to prove their points. Both sides would be proven liars and the public would then have more information to make better informed decisions.

I think Clinton won this debate and I wish it wasn't so. But I'm not going to pretend that she didn't, in my opinion. Trump needs to monitor his narcissism (all presidential candidates need to be narcissistic in order to run for that office) and anticipate her strategy better than he did this time. He also needs to be able to use her attacks to his advantage--there's so much dirt on Clinton that just got swept under the carpet this time.

Finally, Trump's excuse to lay off Clinton because her family was in the room, and that he thinks Chelsea is a nice person, is not a good reason to throw the debate. 

Just lift the carpet and you'll easily show us the dirt. Chelsea knows it's there--she probably helped put it there.