Pence put on a strong display of how to be prepared, pivot, and punch back
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence won Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate by a landslide, offering a polished, poignant performance some are suggesting Donald Trump could learn from ahead of his second face-off with Hillary Clinton Sunday.
As Pence and Virginia Sen. Time Kaine clashed during the debate in Farmville, Virginia, the well-prepared Pence maintained his cool in the face of Kaine’s incessant interruptions. In deftly dodging Kaine’s darts and refusing to become bogged down by his attacks, the Indiana governor winsomely presented the Trump campaign’s strong vision for implementing change in Washington and restoring greatness to the nation.
“This is exactly what Trump needed,” Ingraham said. “But what could Donald Trump learn from the way Mike Pence handled himself?”
“This is exactly what Trump needed,” LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham said Wednesday on “The Laura Ingraham Show.” “But what could Donald Trump learn from the way Mike Pence handled himself?”
Ingraham said despite the fact Pence and Trump are “totally different people” with vastly differing styles, the GOP nominee could nevertheless garner some practical insights.
“Donald Trump is not going to be Mike Pence. He’s not gonna be someone who doesn’t react to all attacks,” Ingraham said, noting that Trump cannot afford to “squander precious time” on trivial things that don’t matter.
“I think [Trump] can learn a lot from Mike Pence about the pivot, which is something you have to do in these debate settings. You can’t stay on whatever the moderator wants you to answer. You have to move to your points.”
Byron York, the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, told Ingraham the next debate for Trump will be his “last chance” to make up for his rough first performance.
“Remember we were saying that about the first debate, that it was so critical and Trump has this huge opportunity. It is a one-time opportunity. Well, it was kind of a one-time opportunity, but I do think he has another chance,” York said, noting that President Obama made a magnificent comeback in his second debate during his 2012 bid for re-election — after suffering a crushing defeat in the first one to then-GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
“It’s possible he could have another chance. But he has to be better, and to do that, he has to have been working this last week or so on a lot of this traditional stuff,” York said.
York and Ingraham pointed to how Pence spent weeks preparing for the vice presidential debate, participating in mock debates and reviewing Kaine’s old debate footage during his runs for the Senate and for Virginia governor. In stark contrast, Trump eschewed these “traditional” preparation methods.
“[Pence] was 12 years in the House of Representatives in the leadership and he’s been governor of Indiana for three years. He’s been studying and working with policy for years and years. Donald Trump has not, so he can’t just do that,” York said. “But, Trump is Trump, and he has the advantage on issues over Hillary Clinton. And if he performs well, then I think he really does have a chance to get back in it.”
Both Ingraham and York agreed that Trump should decrease the number of rallies he gives just before each of the two remaining events. The GOP nominee participated in a rally the day before the first debate, and he is scheduled to give another one the day before the second debate.
“I mean, I’m not giving him advice, but man — I would just have him stay put, get rested, and just focus on that debate, because I think the debate is really important,” Ingraham said.
York added, “Obviously, I think Trump thinks that it gives him a sort of push of energy, this extra boost, this wind under his wings to do that. But, a debate is not a rally, and this one truly is, I think, his last chance to come out and do well before a massive TV audience.”
If Trump can pull a solid second debate performance, the polls — which have been swinging up and down before meeting the middle in a continuous cycle for months — could stabilize and give Trump the edge he needs to win, York said.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a campaign surrogate for Trump, agreed that Trump’s poll numbers depend on his ability to churn out a solid second debate performance.
“Now I think he can begin an ascent toward Election Day because the issues, as you indicate, reflect the concerns of the American people. Nobody is protecting their interests,” Sessions said. “So I think if we can get this message and this campaign back to those fundamental issues and why Donald Trump’s policies will make America stronger, better and more prosperous, then he’ll be on track to regain the lead that he had twice moving forward.”
In the end, Sessions believes that Trump has always had the edge over Clinton in terms of his campaign message and his willingness to both listen to and champion the concerns of the American people. If Trump can make this clear in the second debate, then he can build on Pence’s boost in momentum and claim victory on Election Day — because Clinton represents “the epitome of the global Establishment special interest camp.”
“This is about the concerns of the American people. They have been ignored. Hillary Clinton calls them ‘irredeemable deplorables.’ I mean, this is the mindset of the mainstream of Establishment power groups from globalists to Washington, D.C. They’re used to running things their way, and they’ve stiffed the American people in their interests,” Sessions concluded. “This is the kind of thing that creates an opportunity for us to elect somebody who’s in tune with where the people are, and I think Donald Trump’s message is there.”
The parents of two of the four Americans killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 are suing Hillary Clinton.
Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Clinton Monday, citing her “extreme carelessness” of handling classified information on her private email server as one of the reasons that contributed to the attacks.
Smith and Woods are also suing Clinton for defamation in public statements and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, according to Fox News.
Because Clinton was not using a secure server, the lawsuit claims, the terrorists were able to “obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya, and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now-infamous Sept. 11, 2012 attack.”
Clinton campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill responded to the suit, saying, “While no one can imagine the pain of the families of the brave Americans we lost at Benghazi, there have been nine different investigations into this attack and none found any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton.”
Meanwhile, Clinton still denies ever having told the families of the victims that the attack was caused by an anti-Islam YouTube video and not terrorism. Instead, she blames the parents’ “grief” for misunderstanding her.
Patricia Smith spoke out against Clinton at the Republican National Convention in July, saying she blames “Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”
Hillary Clinton didn’t tell the truth about her emails, and she’s still not telling the truth about her emails.
That is a fact made clear on national television earlier this month by FBI Director James Comey. As he put it during a press conference to announce they wouldn’t be recommending charges for the former Secretary of State, Clinton lied about:
- Whether she used “one device”
- Whether emails were “marked classified” when sent or received
- The possibility of security breaches to her email
- Whether she communicated with officials on their .gov emails
- Whether State Department was careful with classified emails
Now Hillary is getting called out for another dishonest statement.
In an interview Sunday on Fox News, Clinton said:
“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
Let’s unpack that. Clinton claims that the FBI Director says that she was honest with her answers, even though he was rather plain that she was not truthful with her answers.
How did she pull that one off?
Take it away, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler:
Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey in order to preserve her basic narrative about the unusual email set-up. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation.For instance, when Clinton asserts “my answers were truthful,” a campaign aide said she is referring to this statement by Comey to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”
But as Kessler pointed out, that was a dodge.
Comey was saying that Clinton hadn’t lied to the FBI. While the FBI would not release any transcript or recording of its interview with Clinton, all the director was saying is they had no evidence of her lying … to them.
Clinton, meanwhile, was saying that Comey vouched for her statements made to the American public. He clearly did not, as he laid out — both in his press conference and while testifying to Congress — the areas where she lied to the American public.
In the end, Kessler slapped Hillary’s statement with WaPo’s harshest judgement for a lie:
As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public–which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.
That’s going sting for Clinton, who is battling Donald Trump in what’s become an ever-tightening race, even as she deals with national concerns about her honesty as a leader.
Although the Democratic National Convention still has almost two full days to go, it has already managed to descend into a complete and utter farce.
From anti-Trump hysteria to hypocritical, brain-dead celebrities, to the embrace of extreme radical left-wing ideology, the 2016 DNC illustrates just how far removed from the concerns of normal, everyday folks the Democratic P:arty has become.
Nothing screams a concern for middle America as much as a panel discussion on the important topic of whether or not transgender men can get abortions.
Indeed, nothing screams a concern for middle America as much as a panel discussion on the important topic of whether or not transgender men can get abortions. That’s exactly what occurred at the DNC in an event hosted by The Atlantic entitled “Young Women Rising: America’s Next Top Voter?”
When the panel was questioned about reproductive rights and men who identify as women — because evidently safe, legal access to abortion is a pressing issue for “women” who don’t have uteruses — actress Amber Tamblyn chimed in happily.
“I wouldn’t know any statistics on that but I would say that goes again with the same notion of community, and fighting for everyone together,” Tamblyn said. “That for me as a heterosexual white woman to talk about reproductive rights and sit on the board of directors for Planned Parenthood, I have to not just talk about my people. I have to talk about everybody,” she said.
“The fact that I don’t know [if men who identify as women are having their reproductive rights infringed upon], the fact that I don’t have an answer should tell you a lot about what I need to learn,” Tamblyn continued.
Indeed, the DNC has so far been a glaring reminder of the Democratic Party’s somewhat bizarre belief that entertainment celebrities are somehow uniquely qualified to discuss the important sociopolitical issues of the day.
“Hillary knows that access and opportunity are the American promise. Not transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and systemic racism,” said living embodiment of everything wrong with modern feminism, Lena Dunham.
Dunham appeared with America Ferrara, a B-list TV actress who, as the daughter of Hispanic immigrants who named her after this country, is an obvious darling of the Left.
Dunham and Ferrara’s performance made clear the Democrats have no serious intent on debating the GOP or Trump’s ideas, but will instead cry big bad hateful wolf. “According to Donald Trump, I’m probably a rapist,” Ferrara said.
The most galling statement, however, came from Dunham. “I am a pro-choice, feminist, sexual assault survivor with a chronic reproductive illness … His rhetoric about women takes us back to a time when we were meant to be beautiful and silent,” Dunham claimed. “Meanwhile, 22 years ago, Hillary Clinton declared that women’s rights are human rights,” she continued.
The 2016 DNC, ladies and gentlemen: in which a woman who joked in her autobiography about molesting her own little sister claims to be a sexual assault survivor while praising a woman who defended a child rapist in court and spent a lifetime silencing her husband’s sexual assault victims as a champion of women.
In addition to putting a premium on celebrities spewing asinine nonsense, the DNC made sure to pander aggressively to every possible interest group on their progressive planet — other than white males, obviously.
Indeed, the DNC’s social justice stage props have included everything from an 11-year-old girl and her illegal-alien mother, to the mothers of young black men killed by police, to a disabled woman in a wheelchair, and even a dwarf. On Thursday the DNC — which has decided to do away with single-sex bathrooms because apparently the desire for privacy and comfort is a form of bigotry — will feature the first transgender person to address a national convention.
The Democrats’ politically correct pandering has become so palpable it reaches the level of parody.