Trump had to fight referee, too

Holt, Clinton, Trump at debate.

Holt, Clinton, Trump at debate.

While I’m no fan of Trump, I do think the fight should be fair. He should not have to parry jabs from both his opponent and the referee.

But at the debate Lester Holt hammered Trump on his claim that he did not support the war in Iraq while ignoring the fact Clinton voted for it.

After Clinton accused Trump of pushing tax cuts for the top percent, Holt delivered the one-two with: “And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that.”

Holt pounded the birther nonsense as if Trump were running against Obama instead of Clinton.

The moderator hounded Trump about his tax returns, but the words “Foundation” and “Benghazi” were never mentioned.

Holt, who is black, did not ask a follow-up after Clinton said: “Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.”

Nor did he challenge her claim that stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional because it was ineffective, when the judge actually said it violated the equal protection clause. The case was later settled.

Of course, Trump did manage to punch himself in the jaw with his ham-fisted comment about Clinton not having “the look” or “stamina” to be president. The look? Get a mirror, Bubba.


28 comments on “Trump had to fight referee, too

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    Trump had to know he was in enemy territory with Lester Holt moderating, earlier he, Trump, mentioned that the process was rigged so he shouldn’t have been surprised at Holt’s querulous, near sneering, demands for answers. Lester Holt, this years Candy Crowley, won’t have to worry that he will fade from the picture as she did, he’s black, a liberal, and from Chicago, the real seat of Democrat politics.

  2. Barbara says:

    I watched the debate and thought everyone involved from the moderator to both Trump and Hillary did a poor job. I thought Hillary won the debate as she kept Trump on the defensive for most of it. This was not a debate that discussed issues or solutions to the countries problems. It did not contrast two competing visions. It was boring and frankly a waste of time repeating personal issues of the candidates. I doubt it changed anyone’s mind as to who they will vote for in Nov.

    Trump wasn’t clear or sharp on policy differences and what they will mean to the average American. I’m not sure exactly what his tax policy proposals are, and he passed on the opportunity to show how Hillary’s increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes would hurt the those at the bottom end from finding jobs.

    No one but a Trumpster is buying his excuse of an audit for not releasing his tax returns. Instead of countering he would release his returns when Hillary released her emails, he should have countered with her being transparent on the revisions to the tax returns of the Clinton Foundation and the pay for play which clearly took place. His one reference to the emails fell flat.

    Hillary repeated the same tired old liberal ideology. She, as far as I can remember, presented nothing new. I did become bored and returned to reading, only paying scant attention.

    Nothing I saw or heard from the debate would push me to either candidate. However, I do think Trump’s statement on his list of Supreme Court nominees is significant. I saw an interview Cruz gave to the Texas Tribune on Saturday. He stated the Trump campaign asked what it would take to bring him on board, and he specifically stated he needed assurances that the Constitution and Rule of Law would be defended. The new list was drawn up adding 10 more names, and Trump put out a statement saying he would only appoint jurists from this list. To me this is a significant development in pulling conservatives to supporting Trump.

  3. nyp says:

    “Holt, who is black ….”

  4. Rincon says:

    Your must hate Hillary more than you hate Trump, Thomas, because your bias is showing.

    You complained that Holt asked Trump to defend his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. From the transcript:

    Holt: “Secretary Clinton, you’re calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I’d like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that:

    Sounds like equal treatment to me on this one.

    You say the moderator hounded Trump about his tax returns, with no mention of Benghazi or Foundation. Perhaps that’s because Trump had answered that he would release his tax returns when Hillary released her Emails. Holt’s response? HOLT: “He also — he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?” So Emails were questioned. As for Benghazi, only Conservative ideologues consider that to be an open question. The Foundation? Sorry, I’m not familiar enough yet to comment, but it seems Emails makes it a one to one balance on the part of Holt.

    You thought Holt should have followed up on this comment by Clinton: “Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Her next sentence: “I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other.”

    You think that deserved some sort of challenge by the moderator? On what basis? It’s clearly a statement of opinion.

    On challenging Trump’s claim that he never supported the war in Iraq, the fact is that Trump had: “Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded, when asked in September 2002 whether he supported invading Iraq. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

    Holt was trying to ask the followup question, HOLT: Why is your judgment — why is your judgment any different than Mrs. Clinton’s judgment? After all, both candidates had accused each other of supporting that war, so it was a reasonable question. It was Trump that interrupted Holt 8 times, making it a big fiasco. Holt merely refused to be intimidated.

    Which also brings up the fact that Trump interrupted 55 times compared to 11 for Clinton. Perhaps Holt should be commended for standing up to a habitual bully.

  5. Well Nyp…unlike our Community Organizer in Chief (who is half black)…Lester Holt IS black, you have a problem with that?

  6. Nyp says:

    “Half black”

  7. Steve says:

    As for who was abused or won that debate, it all depends on what side you happen to be.

    I think it was a great 90 minute ad for Gary Johnson!

  8. “Donald Trump’s main opponent in the first presidential debate wasn’t Hillary Clinton. It was NBC anchor Lester Holt. Hillary, with forced smiles as brittle as china and an eerie fake laugh, continued her primary debate strategy of repeating canned talking points while waiting for the moderator to knock off her opponent. Hillary wasn’t there to debate, but to once again seem like the only possible option.”

    “Holt’s job was to make her seem like the only possible option by targeting Trump.”

    “There were fears that Lester Holt would be another Candy Crowley. That was unfair to Crowley. The entire debate was structurally biased. Its general topics were framed in narrow left-wing terms, instead of discussing the economy and moving the country forward, Holt defined the topics as class warfare and racial divisiveness. Even national security was narrowed down to Obama’s favorite battlespace, cyberspace, rather than the actual battlefield.”

    “Trump was hit with repeated personal attacks and gotcha questions by Holt, who then took to arguing with him over the facts. Hillary, despite having been under investigation by the FBI, received only a perfunctory offer from Lester Holt to comment on her emails after Trump had raised the issue.”

    “But Holt’s overt bias also proved to be his undoing. Candy Crowley had been effective because her interjection into the debate between Obama and Romney had come as something of a surprise. Holt made his agenda clear at the outset. And it also made him easy to ignore, as Trump frequently did.” (Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.”)

  9. nyp says:

    A “Shillman Journalism Fellow”?
    guess that’s what you call a Freudian job title.

  10. Rincon says:

    Trump and Clinton both voiced their views on the Email scandal. Although Benghazi wasn’t mentioned, it is easy to defuse. All Clinton has to say is something like, “Sometimes I feel like I’m in a third world country. Someone says, ,”Investigate Clinton about Benghazi”. When the investigation concludes there is no wrongdoing, then the direction is, “investigate again and keep investigating until you find her guilty of something.” Well, I’m happy to say, they finally gave up after 8 investigations, all of which found no wrongdoing. Does Mr. Trump think a 9th investigation is in order?”

    My complaint is that Trump’s 15 or so other scandals weren’t even mentioned.

  11. Steve says:

    That’s no surprise, Patrick.
    You stated Hillary is the “best Republican running” several months back and several times too.
    I have stated several times, you are right. She is more conservative than Trump on issues other than social.
    Shouldn’t come as any kind of shock, traditional Republicans can support a; well known; less liberal candidate of the two major party offerings.

    I think they are missing a bet, Johnson and Weld are the best option for social liberals and fiscal conservatives we have seen in a generation.

    Now as to your likely response, just what does the word “fuking” mean?

  12. Vernon Clayson says:

    To satisfy nyp who seems to dislike “black” when discussing race, we will call Holt non-white. “Non-white lives matter” does have a ring to it.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Vernon it probably passed right by you, but, nyp’s pont was that, for some unknown reason,a Thomas decided to include the race of just one individual he mentioned here; why do yo think that is?

  14. Steve says:

    Mountains and molehills, Patrick.

    But that is your M.O. changing the target and pushing the inconsequential.

    Just another thing for you to hate about me, I call you out every time you pull these boners out.

    hater, thy name is Patrick.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Steve you are a fuking idiot.

  16. Barbara says:

    The best commentary on the debate I have read: We’re all dumber for having watched it.

  17. Two words for the Libertarian candidate…Aleppo and “Cheeba Chews.”

  18. OK…three words. (pre-coffee) Here’s two more…Merry Jane. And thanks for that article Barbara…spot on assessment of the debate. (Lester Holt also did his best Megyn Kelly impersonation to go along with his Candy Crowley imitation). Dennis Prager broke down the “debate” during all three hours of his radio show yesterday – also a very good, in depth synopsis.

  19. nyp says:

    The Libertarian candidate is the guy who says we don’t have to worry about global warming because the Sun is expanding and will eventually encompass the Earth.

  20. Steve says:

    Lighten up, nyp.
    If you can’t find any humor in these things you will never be able to find a path to discussion.

  21. nyp says:

    I will take the joke when you can find a proposal from his for dealing with climate change that involves anything other than space travel.

  22. Steve says:

    There is only one way to “deal” with a natural process being influenced ( in an understatement known part) by human activity.
    The natural process is going to continue no matter what humans do.
    Based on current knowledge, there is only one conclusion for “dealing” with the ever changing climate. Adapt, or die.

    Smart people are realizing this every day and those are the people you really try, with all dispatch, to denigrate.
    We are on to your game.

  23. Steve says:

    “Understatement” should be “undisclosed”

  24. Anonymous says:

    An interesting study by Yale University may explain why some people saw the actions of the debate moderator (“who is black”) in the light they did.

  25. Good grief…what a boat load of crapola. Bias is asking questions about Trump’s birther support, and then waving off all claims about Hillary’s campaign staff lighting that fuse in 2008. Bias is going down the rabbit hole to try and prove that Trump, a private citizen wasn’t against the Iraq war when he said he was…while giving a pass to the former US Senator who was standing next to him who actually voted FOR the war. Bias is calling out Trump’s supposed degrading of women, while standing on the stage next to him was the first head of Bill Clinton’s Bimbo Eruptions task force before Betsey Wright took over that duty. And so on…and so forth. Mr. Holt’s questions were straight out of the DNC playbook…while real and meaningful issues took a back seat.

  26. nyp says:

    when was it that Donald Trump decided that President Obama was an American citizen after all?
    BTW — do you believe that the President was born in Hawaii?

  27. Rincon says:

    One of the ways in which organisms evolve is to prevent problems rather than face them head on, such as prey animals with camouflage, which allows them to avoid notice in the first place. Humans have the power to adapt as a society. Unfortunately, we are still too primitive in this case to use prevention as a strategy.

    As for the perception of the moderator, I believing bringing out the race card is highly questionable. I suspect the bias in this group in favor of conservative views far outweighs any racial bias that might exist. Consider that Hillary is very white, but many in this group hate her with a passion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s