Savvy Street Editors’ Reactions to the First Presidential Debate

All four of Savvy Street editors’ reactions to the first US presidential debate 2024

 

Donna Paris

Biden began his remarks by claiming that he has done his best with the mess he inherited from Trump. Every president claims he has inherited a mess created by his predecessor and that’s true because governments make messes. Obama inherited Bush’s mess—and exacerbated it. Trump inherited Obama’s mess—and minimized it. Biden has taken “mess” to an all-new level.

Every president claims he has inherited a mess created by his predecessor and that’s true because governments make messes.

Everything Trump accused Biden of doing is true. His policies have been disastrous for this country and if the United States does not change course, we will continue to suffer. But to blame one man for the corruption of American principles is an error. If the president—any president—is solely responsible for the problems created by government policies, then we have a rogue presidency, no matter who’s in office. In truth what we have in this country today is a rogue government enabled by an electorate that itself ignores the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in exchange for the promise of being taken care of by—anyone.

Biden accused Trump of mishandling the response to the COVID pandemic. Governments globally mishandled the pandemic. In the US, it was governors—blue-state governors—who first instituted lockdowns and eventually mandated vaccinations. Trump’s part in it was minimal by comparison. The pandemic was never anything but an opportunity for a political power-grab, and people worldwide proved they were ripe for the grabbing.

Most of Trump’s claims about his economic policies are true. However, he can’t claim sole responsibility for having kept inflation low. He like other presidents borrowed to fund programs without raising taxes and the FED kept interest rates artificially low. Both policies delayed but inevitably lead to future inflation, and inflation is a tax. Again, governments make messes no matter which side of the aisle governs.

The question is who do you expect to make the smaller mess? The man whose policies and political principles are fundamentally sound or the man who is rapidly ushering in socialism and its totalitarian tyranny (by-the-way, the real fascists in this country are the Democrats, not Trump or the Republicans). The definition of fascism? Nominal private ownership and freedom under total government control. Both parties are capable of this; only one openly embraces it. Remember that those who claim they’re going to take care of you mean what they say. But I doubt you’ll like the result. The American people need to begin taking responsibility for themselves.

Neither candidate addressed the fundamental cause of the current state of this country: government interference in all aspects of our lives.

Neither candidate addressed the fundamental cause of the current state of this country: government interference in all aspects of our lives. That’s because both fundamentally agree that government is supposed to provide solutions. But government can’t and won’t provide solutions. Only individuals left free to think and act can provide solutions. Instead of defending his record on economic or money terms, Trump should have emphasized his attempts to reduce regulations and leave people free to pursue their own solutions. Instead, he kept hammering away at the same “talking points”: He has endorsements; Biden doesn’t. He was respected by other heads of state; Biden is not. He controlled the border; Biden has not. There was no war; now there is. Anyone with eyes and ears already knows this. He should have explained why—why the difference.

Both men’s characters have been called into question. Trump’s manner of expressing himself has always been problematic and it’s hard to look past to judge his policies, but it’s essential to do so. It’s also hard to look past Biden’s manner of expressing himself—constantly spouting rag-tag platitudes and bromides that he expects to make the electorate feel all warm and fuzzy, but it’s essential to do so.

Some people I know plan to cast a “statement” vote by voting for neither man. They will vote for a Libertarian or an Independent candidate to register their disapproval of the current offerings. Of course, if they do, the only statement they will make is that ultimately they are willing to live under socialism.

 

Roger E. Bissell

The big surprise of last night’s presidential debate was who won. No, the winner was neither of the two presumptive nominees: Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Instead, it was CNN and the American people.

I had expected the debate to be a three-on-one tag team match between Trump and Biden, assisted by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, both of CNN. Perhaps this is what motivated Trump to agree to a debate with so many of the rules and format details stacked against him. (He was a professional wrestling promoter once upon a time, and I was a professional wrestling fan back in earlier days.) Since it was my birthday yesterday, instead of the ritual hot, buttered popcorn and Coke, I had birthday cake and a glass of milk. (It was delicious.) I’m glad I didn’t waste the popcorn. The debate was much less entertaining than I expected it to be.

In particular, like many Americans I wondered whether CNN would load the dice in Biden’s favor, as some of their debate moderators have similarly done in the past (especially Donna Brazile for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Candy Crowley for Barack Obama in 2012). Instead, wonder of wonders, Tapper and Bash played it straight. They actually wore the Robes of Integrity and carried out a rather tame and transparent format with no audience and no interruptions—who likes a debate without interruptions and crowd noise?—and they did so with impressive clarity and vigor, almost entirely staying out of the way of the two debaters. In so doing, they at least somewhat redeemed the tarnished image of their network. We’ll see whether this sets a new benchmark for CNN going forward.

For over four years, the media and left-leaning politicians have been covering for Joe Biden’s clear and progressive cognitive decline.

The American people—at least, those wanting basic, reliable information on which to base their votes in the November election—got it, in spades. For over four years, the media and left-leaning politicians have been covering for Joe Biden’s clear and progressive cognitive decline, telling us we are seeing doctored videos or we don’t understand how sharp and with-it Joe is in private (when he makes his important presidential decisions, don’t you know), when any simpleton could clearly see, during the past four-plus years, that the man was gradually falling apart before our eyes. Finally, the façade fell away, the gaslighting (mostly) ended, and we all saw the truth, resulting in a massive shift of undecided and independent voters away from the Democrats. . .

. . . and, in particular, from Joe Biden, who was the clear loser for the evening. Before even 15% of the debate had occurred, he had a serious meltdown, trying to defend his handling of the economic mess he claims Trump handed him in January 2021. As he has often done in the past, Biden trailed off in the middle of a sentence, groping for words to complete the thought, then resorted to one of his stock devices to try to reboot his oratory: [silence, then] “Look…” but this time it failed to trigger a new string of words, and finally, after more silence, he blurted out, “We finally beat Medicare.” (What??!) Apparently, he was not on any medication to hop him up like we saw in his most recent unhinged State of the Union speech. We got the real deal last night, and it wasn’t pretty.

No doubt this is what threw Democrat operatives into even more of a panic than did Biden’s other recent severe stumbles, and excuse-making was largely replaced with discussions of how, if possible, to replace Biden on the November ballot. The big question is: Will Biden give in to urgent pleas (or demands) that he withdraw, and someone else such as (shudder) Gavin Newsom or (double shudder) Kamala Harris be the nominee—or will he stubbornly cling to his presumptive nomination and go down in flames in November? Stay tuned.

Some said it was Trump’s debate to lose and, if so, he definitely did not lose it. Accordingly, some will say he won, especially if (as expected) his contributions and poll numbers both have an uptick. In any case, Trump did not become angry and hostile, though he repeatedly hammered Biden with how he has wrecked the economy, the border, criminal justice, and foreign policy. Biden, however, alternated between talking very fast, making irrelevant angry retorts (accusing Trump of implying, in a debunked claim by his former Chief of Staff, that Biden’s deceased son, Beau, was a “sucker” and a “loser” for fighting in the military), staring vacantly, and mumbling and stumbling in his words. If his Democrat colleagues needed any further motivation to crank up efforts to replace him on the November ticket, he gave it to them last night.

As has been the custom during presidential campaigns since almost the founding of the Republic, there were plenty of insults flying in both directions. Biden’s were frequently personal, such as Trump’s weight, his alleged sex with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, and his current status as “convicted felon.” Trump’s insults, however, were mostly political, though he did point out that Biden’s son was also a convicted felon, despite Biden’s Department of Justice letting the statute of limitations run out on other potential felony charges that would have implicated Biden—while Trump’s own conviction(s) are likely to be overturned on appeal.

As for what lies ahead, in such a volatile election cycle as this one has been so far, it’s tempting to wave one’s hand and simply say that all bets are off. Will there be a Round Two between Biden and Trump? I would guess not. Will Biden be replaced? I don’t see how, unless he voluntarily withdraws. Will Trump be replaced? I doubt it, even if he is sentenced to prison on July 11, just four days before the GOP convention. Will the November election be delayed or canceled by a new pandemic or a terrorist attack or World War 3 or an alien invasion or an asteroid striking the earth? How could anyone know? (Except the insiders and/or the “experts,” of course.)

My money is on the two major party candidates in November being Biden and Trump.

For me, though, my money is on the two major party candidates in November being Biden and Trump, and that draws the battle lines rather clearly. A music colleague of mine made the comment shortly after the debate concluded that he would rather have the president be Feeble (who can be assisted by competent staff) rather than completely destructive Evil—Mr. Magoo rather than Hitler, to put it bluntly. Perhaps so, but what choice do you have when one of the main two candidates is both Feeble and Evil—or too Feeble to detach himself from the Evil ones who are pulling his strings and actually running the show? Also, I find more attractive the idea that if you’re walking through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, it’s better to be walking beside the Meanest S.O.B. in the Valley. In that case, the alternative some find to be repulsive and unprincipled may be your only viable choice.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Listening to the first presidential debate for the highest office in the world (the American presidency) was an absolute torture despite the fact that, thankfully, the two speakers were not allowed to talk over the other (by having one mike muted at all times) and neither of them resorted to shouting. But if this was a debate, what were they debating?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a debate thus (emphasis mine):

1. a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides, or
2. the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure.

The Cambridge dictionary defines a debate as (emphasis mine):

(a) a serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part, or

(b) a competition in which teams of people, often students, discuss a subject and the team that is judged to make the best arguments wins.

What we see in election debates are Q&As. Actually, for the most part, they are questions and evasive non-answers.

What we see in election debates are Q&As. Actually, for the most part, they are questions and evasive non-answers. Ask me about Israel and I will begin with my talking points about the other guy being incompetent, or about the other guy being a convicted felon. Ask me about inflation, and I can talk about my golf handicap when I was a VP and the other guy’s weight, or how I aced two cognitive tests.

You could say that the moderators tried their best. Not really.

The questions in themselves assume that the role of a head of state is to interfere in the economic and personal affairs of its citizens by giving them something. What have you done for veterans? For blacks? For those addicted to opioids; for women’s rights (to abortion); for students; for workers, and so on.

Thankfully, there was no audience to clap when the student debt question did not arise for a candidate to say, “But I cancelled all student debt. Can’t you see how great I am?” Sure, what about the bank’s shareholders whose money you stole to cancel all that debt?

Donald Trump bragged that he could end the Ukraine war while he was still a president-elect (if he wins a second term) without being asked how. He evaded the Palestinian question of the two-state solution. Joe Biden came with memorized statements that he seemed mostly capable of reproducing, but with several half-statements repeated, and the odd error, mixing trillions with billions.

Trump was not asked why he didn’t sack Anthony Fauci or about how China’s retaliation to his first-term tariffs worsened the plight of US farmers. Biden was not asked why he didn’t attempt to stop the Ukraine war by negotiation or why he believes Putin is a Hitler who will annex the whole of Ukraine and then Poland, Hungary, and so on.

Neither of them was asked whether they buy into climate alarmism. Neither was asked whether they actually understand what causes inflation. Neither was asked how they will bring down the phenomenal budget deficit and what will happen if they do not.

The conspiracy theorists will have a field day—that a last-minute replacement in Chicago had been in the works all along, to give the new candidate a honeymoon-period boost.

But we know Biden believes in climate alarmism. We know he uses Stephanie Kelton (a vigorous proponent of MMT, a recipe for runaway hyperinflation) as an economic advisor. We need not look any further. For all his braggadocio and his incoherence, Donald J. Trump is quite simply the “lesser evil.” Whether that’s enough to stop the USS Titanic from hitting the iceberg, we don’t know, but at the very least, it will slow down the ship and buy a bit more time.

There is no need for round two. At least, I am planning to skip it.

But Biden’s apparent cognitive decline has now triggered responses from senior Democrats that he needs to be replaced at the Convention in August. But they acted surprised! Yet the decline has been visible to the whole world for a few years now. The conspiracy theorists will have a field day—that a last-minute replacement in Chicago had been in the works all along, to give the new candidate a honeymoon-period boost, a new, untarnished, younger image. Three names, all governors, are being thrown around: Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), Gavin Newsom (California), and J.D. Pritzker (Illinois). The money raised is attached to the Biden-Harris ticket, so it needs to be someone who can either raise new money quickly (apparently Newsom) or one who already has it (Pritzker, whose estimated wealth is about $3.5 billion).

Now a second debate, if there is one more after the respective Conventions and it features a newcomer for the Democrats, may be worth watching.

 

Walter Donway

The first Presidential Debate of 2024 staged in Atlanta Thursday evening will be the topic of commentary, interpretation, and speculation for years to come. I watched the debate on CNN, then the panel of 10 CNN commentators—100 percent anti-Trump—immediately following.

The unanimity was astonishing, overwhelming, and it was a reaction to a disaster:

“Unmitigated disaster…”

“No energy, no stamina…”

“Painful. I love that guy [Biden, of course], but tonight he failed…”

“Based on that, Trump will be president-elect in four months…”

“Democrats are panicking…”

“One night that confirmed all peoples’ fears [about Biden]…”

What were the commentators doing? Of course, they were critiquing Biden’s performance, but the goal of their ferocious negativity was to begin what, by this morning, already is a crusade: Get Biden out of the race. Or Trump will win. And the world as we know it will end.

By this morning, the headlines in the Wall Street Journal-related “MarketWatch” are “Biden Crashes in First Debate with Trump.…” “Democrats Privately Discuss Replacing Biden on Presidential Ticket.” “Biden’s Disastrous Night Stands to Alter Course of Election…”

“Privately Discuss Replacing Biden”? The CNN commentators were not “private” and were unanimous. They also were angry. One said: All the Biden associates who have told us again and again he is “robust,” cognitively sharp, “are liars.” The others agreed. I predict, and it isn’t a daring prediction, that the pressure to replace Biden on the ticket will take on the dimensions and vehemence of the historic efforts to destroy Donald Trump. The New York Times this morning (June 28) recommended it in an editorial.

The  June 28 Times also reported that “members of [Biden’s] administration…traded frenzied phone calls and text messages within minutes of the start of the debate.… Practically in despair, some took to social media to express shock.…”

The CNN commentators barely mentioned the substance of the debate (one lifelessly intoned “Biden won on substance…”), but every commentator, without exception, casually referred to “Trump’s lies.”

Not one attempt was made, even briefly, to substantiate the charge of lying[by Trump].

Not one attempt was made, even briefly, to substantiate the charge of lying. The assumption, I imagine, was that three-plus years of daily mainstream media repetition had established the lies beyond dispute. It might be useful to look very briefly at a couple.

One supposed Trump lie is that his tax cut benefited all Americans, especially lower-income Americans, including blacks. Trump’s $1.9 trillion in tax cuts led to the bottom-up growth of the U.S. economy. Unemployment rates plunged for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and women. Poverty rates fell to an all-time low in 2019. The lowest 20 percent of incomes rose 16%-plus—the largest ever for those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Only top income earners paid more federal taxes under the Trump tax cuts, no other group. And inequality under Trump fell after rising during Obama’s eight years in office. (As an aside: the Trump tax revision doubled the child-care tax credit. Maybe Trump in the debate did not feel he had to explain what he would do about child-care in his next term.)

There may be a reason that many Americas recall first two years of Trump’s term with nostalgia for “good times.” To compare Trump’s four years with Biden’s is preposterous, given that the pandemic that struck in 2020.

Another alleged Trump lie is that he strengthened NATO. Biden said during the debate that Trump threatened its existence and CNN commentators nodded. In a 2014 deal, following years in which European countries left the funding of NATO to America, members had committed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Four years later, in Trump’s first year in office, just four of the 30 members were meeting that 2% pledge. Trump asked them, in effect: Is the deal off? If it is, then so is America’s pledge to come to your aid if you are attacked. Today, 10 members meet their pledge and more will increase spending by $400 billion this year (unless, of course, Biden lets them off the hook). By demanding that NATO members deliver, Trump may have saved the West’s main military alliance.

The media this morning presents stories “fact checking” the debate. Trump and Biden both are taken to task, Trump considerably more often. In some cases, the charge against Trump of lying is reduced to “misleading.” The economy under Trump did not achieve the lowest unemployment rate in history—only the lowest rate since 1969. Trump exaggerated the criminal element and crimes committed by illegal immigrants and overemphasized their impact; a 2014-15 Department of Homeland Security report said that there were 1.9 million “criminally actionable” immigrants in America and Trump assumed by now it must be 3 million. Biden falsely claimed to be the only president in history under whom no troops died abroad. Biden claimed that during his term 40% fewer people entered the country illegally—only when compared with the brief, highest spike under Trump. Trump claimed former Virginia governor Northam said that after a baby was born, it could be put to death if the mother so decided. Apparently, this was “hypothetical” and he was referring to a deformed baby.

And so it seems to go with the “endless,” “deadly” lies of “deeply dishonest former President Donald J. Trump” (New York Times, June 28).

Trump’s achievements in office were in fact remarkable and are documented in simple statistical terms in many places that CNN commentators can Google was well as I can. For example, Trump’s handling of the COVID crisis, whatever strains and errors may have been made, was nothing short of a triumph. Biden’s greatest mistake, Trump said last night, was making the vaccine mandatory.

The discussion of inflation by both candidates was a farce—but then, it is a farce perpetrated for years by the financial press and the Fed itself.

Finally, I will turn, briefly, to what I view as the disgrace of the evening. The discussion of inflation by both candidates was a farce—but then, it is a farce perpetrated for years by the financial press and the Fed itself.  Who brought down prices, who drove up prices?

In the two years following the March 2020 COVID-19 economic “lockdown” and ensuing stock panic, the Fed expanded its balance sheet (the entire monetary base underlying the dollar) by an incredible 115.6 % or $4.0-trillion brand-new dollars. The U.S. money supply was more than doubled.

As legendary economist Milton Friedman put it, in unforgettably blunt language: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output [of economic goods].”

That is, inflation is an increase in the money supply and causes the general increase in the price level that follows because more dollars bid for the same amount of goods. The Fed delivered, in the name of economic salvation, a 115 % inflation (that it is now gallantly “fighting” as though the inflation invaded from Mars). The translation into a general increase in the price level is never instantaneous nor always entirely obvious (it may go into stock prices, home prices), but one result is that Americans are experiencing price increases bearing little relationship to the government’s official reports of “inflation.” And that infusion of $4.8 trillion in new money is so far less than 20 percent “unwound” by the Fed as Chairman Powell is again talking about “quantitative easing” (creating more money).

Last night’s debate continued the national charade about the causes and remedies for inflation. A dangerous disgrace.