Pence Did His Job - Will Trump Do His?

Pence did his job. And did it fairly well. So for example, if you’re Dan Balz at the Washington Post, what you do is demean and downplay the whole veep debate and say it was generally disappointing. And it’s true, veep debates rarely move the needle in the general election. Lloyd Bentsen’s I knew Jack Kennedy moment? He lost Texas and Quayle became the Vice President, not Bentsen

What you also can do, is state that it's not the veep debate itself that matters, but the spin in the 24 or 48 hours after the debate. That's also very convenient. And Tim Kaine angrily shouted his way through a laundry list of Trumpisms he hopes will stick in the hours and days following their debate at Longwood. With some help from the media of course. His own personal Mount Rushmore; can't tell the difference between dictators and leaders; a you're hired or a you're fired president.

Did Tim Kaine even write his lines? How much input did he have? Stronger together, and I'll tell what is stronger Tim. And it's true. Vice presidents - like Harry Pendel in the Tailor of Panama - have to drucken themselves, and Kaine is a master drucker. But his irritable smirk and aggressive interruptions were ... irritating to say the least. Will his jabbing content of carefully constructed outrage have any effect on voters in the next week or so?

Normally, one would not expect a debate that was devoid of any real clear disaster on the part of either to move the needle much. But perhaps it did what many in the GOP hoped it would, and that's stabilize Trump's campaign once more, after what has been a tough week to say the least.

Pence did his best to be civil and mostly succeeded. The exchange on their personal faith and how it relates to their policy positions was one of Kaine's worst moments as he was forced to confront the conflict between his pro-life views and those of his party and nominee. Will that exchange change any voter's minds on what is perhaps America's most divisive issue? Not likely, but Pence showed himself to be someone who understands the term grace under pressure. In the full meaning of the word grace, a term Tim Kaine understands perfectly well, having been educated by Jesuits. But one that he is clearly uncomfortable with, as he embraces - by necessity and ambition - the unrestricted access to abortion that a President Hillary will surely seek.

Pence did his job. He made the case for change. Will Trump now do his, come Sunday? Or will the change come in 2020? With Pence perhaps as the agent of that very change?

Posted by Keeley at October 6, 2016 3:40 PM
Comments
Comment #408239

The debate on Sunday will change no minds.
The non-stop media blitz of ‘Clinton great, Trump bad’ will continue til the election and will get her some votes.

More Americans than ever before on dependent on government and they will vote for who panders and promises them the most for nothing.
Clinton gets around 60 million votes, Trump doesn’t break 55 million.

Pence is a Conservative and has no chance in 2020. There is no room for our actual Constitution in our future.
Heck, Trump is running as a 90s Bill Clinton democrat and is being attacked as some kind of extremist.
The next ‘Republican’ President will win on a leftist platform similar to the one being ran by Clinton today.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2016 4:10 PM
Comment #408240

“But his irritable smirk and aggressive interruptions were … irritating to say the least.”

I found it annoying as well Keeley and nearly turned off the debate due to all the talk-over by candidates and moderator.

Elected leaders are entitled to express, in public, their own religious beliefs while calling for obeying existing legislation that may be in conflict with those same beliefs.

However, when that same elected leader calls for changing laws (such as the Hyde Amendment) to expressly conflict with their religious belief…that person is a hypocrite and unfit for office.


Posted by: Royal Flush at October 6, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #408242

The only thing that Pence was interested in doing in the debate was providing a future for himself, since he has none in Indiana. He certainly knows that he’s not going to be VPOTUS. He looked more presidential than his own deplorable candidate, while Kaine looked like a VPOTUS supporting his candidate.

The “pro-life” thing is the reason that Drumpf had to use his “foundation” money to buy his way into the nomination process in the early stages. The GOP thought they could out-con the huckster. It didn’t work out that way.

Posted by: oraoghaile at October 6, 2016 4:28 PM
Comment #408246

Aren’t we so tired of the MSM berating the justice dept over their handling of the Clinton email scandal.

Complicity is often found in SILENCE …

Posted by: roy ellis at October 6, 2016 8:29 PM
Comment #408247

Roy,
As I said at the time, conspiracy theories dies hard. Conservatives invested a lot of emotion in those e-mails and in Benghazi. Both conspiracies died, to join all those other fake scandals on the ash heap of history- Fast & Furious, the IRS scandal, Filegate, Travelgate, the murder of Vince Foster- but conservatives are still unhinged by grief. All those accusations! Surely Hillary Clinton must be guilty of something!

kctim,
“… Trump is running as a 90s Bill Clinton democrat and is being attacked as some kind of extremist.”

Guess I missed that part of the platform about barring Muslims from entering the United States, or prosecuting women who had abortions, or anything resembling this little racist gem”

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

I don’t recall Bill Clinton posting material that originated with Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, something Trump has done repeatedly.

Nor do I recall Clinton favoring nuclear proliferation. Trump has favored it for Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. Guess I also missed the part about backing out of NATO treaty obligations.

Now, I can not claim any of those well known gaffes and racist, bigoted statements by Trump represent policy. He says one thing, he has a site that says another, and a VP who offers yet another take. Trump has reversed his stands on Libya, the minimum wage, Syria, and immigration- sometimes reversing positions several times in a matter of days. These reversals apply to virtually every issue.

During the debate, Pence just pretended none of it existed, or he denied it, even though what Kaine was saying was obviously true. I suspect we’ll see more of this after Trump goes down in flames, lots and lots of denial and pretending none of this ever happened.


Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2016 8:52 PM
Comment #408250

I really hope you’re wrong again, phx8. I’d like to see a businessman at the head of the world’s largest corporation, the united states of America.

The only recession we’re going to have will be caused by the loss of excess, unneeded, redundant jobs in the federal government.

Some criminals will go to jail. I’m not saying he’ll put Hillbilly in jail, but he’ll get to the bottom of some very suspect behavior, be it legal or not. Remember how people say it might be unethical, but it’s not illegal? Trump will bring all that out in the open, just like he did with immigration and taxes and the VA.

I’m looking forward to you being wrong again, phx8.


Posted by: Weary Willie at October 6, 2016 11:50 PM
Comment #408254

Phx8,

Surely you’re not suggesting that Bill Clinton does not support legal punishment for those who do illegal things, are you?
You’re not suggesting that Bill Clinton, and even Obama, have not “instituted a ban on “immigrants or nonimmigrants” covered by a larger United Nations travel ban. Most countries were Muslim.”

The idea that the Mexican government sends its trouble makers north has been around longer than Trump. Can’t say if it happens or not, but common sense says it would be in their best interest to do so. And reality proves they don’t do what they could to prevent people leaving for the US.
What I can say happened is what Bill Clinton said in 95:

““All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country,” Clinton said during the speech. “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

‘That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens,” he continued.

Basically, the exact same things Trump is saying today.

The manufactured “Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites” BS has grown old my friend.

Yes, it seems as if Bill and Trump differ on nuclear proliferation. Hey, look, you got one.

“Trump has reversed his stands on Libya, the minimum wage, Syria, and immigration- sometimes reversing positions several times”

As Hillary has:

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/23/478973321/evolution-or-expediency-clintons-changing-positions-over-a-long-career


You didn’t miss anything my friend, your just a sucker for leftist hyperbole.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2016 9:36 AM
Comment #408257

kctim,
Did you even read your own link? The first clue that it might not fly was the phrase “over a long career.”

Trump changes his views very quickly, sometimes in just a matter of days, mostly because he has no idea what he is talking about, and just makes it up off the cuff. HRC has never shown that kind of inconsistency.

Hillary Clinton did evolve on the issue of gay marriage. Many people did. She has been consistent about the minimum wage.

Trade agreements are complicated. Most people would agree agreements like NAFTA and TPP need to be carefully reviewed, and HRC has backed away from TPP as a result of the Sanders campaign. However, trade agreements are fundamentally in the best interests of the United States, including TPP, and Hillary Clinton is right about that too. No country in the world benefits more from free trade than us. The notion pushed by Trump- and it is not really even a policy, just a notion- is that we should take a hostile approach to trade, and even impose trade tariffs on countries like China. In a NYT interview from 1/7/16, Trump advocated a 45% tariff on China.

What would happen if we imposed big tariffs on China, Mexico, and others?
1) Consumer costs would rise
2) Production costs would rise
3) The stock market would fall
4) Interest rates would rise along with credit risk
5) A trade war would decrease overall trade
6) Tariffs would most likely violate current international trade agreements, and weaken overall international relations

Bill Clinton never said anything remotely resembling this:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

And Clinton never advocated the mass deportation of illegal aliens, nor did he advocate a ban on people based upon their religious affiliation.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”
Donald Trump, 12/7/15

So when you write that Clinton was saying “Basically, the exact same things Trump is saying today,” you can see that is absolutely false.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2016 12:32 PM
Comment #408258

Phx8,

Of course I read links, I just don’t search for petty things in order to try and make silly justifications and excuses.

Fact is that Hillary and Trump both have changed their positions on issues they think will get them votes. Only your partisan blindness allows you to see her flip-flopping as ‘evolving’ and listening, while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.

You disagree with Trump on trade and offer doom and gloom scenarios because it doesn’t march in lockstep with liberal ideas? Biiiiiiiig surprise there.

Ah, finally back to what we were actually discussing.

“Bill Clinton never said anything remotely resembling this”

And Trump never meant anything remotely resembling what you guys are trying to pass off. Granted, I don’t recall Bill Clinton claiming that the Mexican government was sending their criminals across the border.

No, WJC never advocated the mass deportation of illegal aliens, he just claimed he was “deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before.” LOL

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”
Donald Trump, 12/7/15

WJC banned Muslims from hostile nations from entering the United States. Should Trump have just said the name of the Muslim country instead of Muslims? Probably. Doesn’t change the fact that the goal is the same.

How about the issues instead of dishonestly trying to parse words? What’s the difference when it comes to meaningful issues?

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2016 1:11 PM
Comment #408260
Yes, it seems as if Bill and Trump differ on nuclear proliferation. Hey, look, you got one.

Really? Did you forget North Korea got the bomb from our Rapist-In-Chief?


Posted by: Weary Willie at October 7, 2016 2:24 PM
Comment #408263

kctim,
You are attempting to create false equivalences, but it goes beyond parsing words. The attempt ignores the fundamental emotion underlying much of the Trump campaign- a hatred for others, whether they are Mexican, illegal aliens from other countries, Muslims, and so on.

While Bill Clinton certainly favored border security, just as Hillary does and just as Obama does, relations have been good with Mexico, including the signing of the NAFTA agreement under WJC, as well as various executive orders from Obama. Trump, on the other hand, incites his crowds to hatred, demanding that we “build a wall” and that “Mexico will pay for it.” He puts families on stage that lost loved ones to illegal immigrants, but there is no evidence whatsoever that illegals commit any more crimes than the background population. It is a horrendous example of demonization. That is as bad as it gets.

That is the fundamental difference between Trump and liberals- the sheer hatred underlying Trump’s positions, the desire to build a wall- a psychological and physical wall- on our border. The hateful fantasy of mass deportations…

“WJC banned Muslims from hostile nations from entering the United States.”
The only immigrant bans by Bill Clinton (that I can find) were for people associated with attempted coup d’états in Sierra Leone and Haiti. Source?

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2016 2:52 PM
Comment #408264

Phx8,

That ‘fundamental emotion underlying much of the Trump campaign’ is based on nothing more than politics.
Just as you need “When Mexico sends…” as an attack on EVERYBODY with an Hispanic background, and need telling one woman she is fat or ugly to be seen as an attack on ALL women, you need stronger immigration policy to mean hatred of ALL foreigners.

How you see border security and demanding Mexico do more to curb those fleeing their country to ours, as inciting hatred is beyond me.

People get it, the far-left that controls the democratic party today does not like Trump. You don’t have any past votes or anything to challenge Trump on, so you resort to what you want people to think he means when he says something.
Perhaps if you guys hadn’t written off Obama’s lack of experience, or had selected a worthy candidate this year, you wouldn’t have to stoop to such silliness?

“Bill Clinton certainly favored border security”

I know, I provided you with one of his quotes on the matter. Oddly enough though, it’s exactly what Trump is saying and what Hillary is avoiding to say at all costs.

Sierra Leone is a predominately Muslim country, Phx8. If you ban people from a Muslim country, are you not banning Muslims?

He11 man, Obama and Hillary banned Iraqi (Muslim) refugees for six months in 2011.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Seriously man, if you can allow Obama to clarify himself when it comes to bitter clingers, and for Hillary to clarify herself on super-predators and deplorables, shouldn’t you afford others the same?

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2016 3:49 PM
Comment #408267

Many,but not all, conserative/right wing commenting here has been wrong so many times it becomes extremely difficult to maintain a sense of understanding or even comprehension.

You were wrong about President Clinton, you were wrong about President GW Bush, you were and continue to be wrong about President Obama. You now turn your attention to Hillary Clinton as the object of your pillory and so far you have been really wrong.

I completely expect some of the same retorts I get from the same individuals mentioned above but I do appreciate the forum to do so by us.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 7, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #408270

Krauthammer really nails it.

“What is Aleppo?” famously asked Gary Johnson. Answer: The burial ground of the Obama fantasy of benign disengagement.

What’s left of the Obama legacy? Even Democrats are running away from Obamacare. And who will defend his foreign policy of lofty speech and cynical abdication?”

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-barack-obama-stillborn-legacy-article-1.2820616

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 7, 2016 6:01 PM
Comment #408271


ABC News: “A review of these latest emails by ABC News has not so far found anything particularly noteworthy or otherwise damning.”

That quote in response to a few more of the 15k emails that will be coming out from DOS. That statement is exactly gross negligence. That is biggly shameful.

One email from Blumenthal relates the poor relations that POTUS created with Germany/EU after a POTUS visit to Russia.
We all recall the hot mic moment with POTUS and Putin: “I can be more flexible after the elections.”

Now, we have the DOS running from Obama’s Russian policy. Worst Soviet relations since the cold war, and so on - - -
Soviets are threatening to “shoot down US warplanes” if POTUS doesn’t behave.

88 Generals stumping for Trump. Spokesman says IRan deal is worst nuclear deal ever.

IRan continues with ICBM development, testing nuclear weapons in NK, and will use billions from deal to modernize their defense posture and support terrorism around the world.

Meanwhile the MSM has come up with a hot mic tape of the Donald talking trash about women. CNN stating that it is a “crisis’ for the GOP. If this is their Oct surprise they better start digging for something better fast.

I did hear that the FBI is charging Russia with hacking the DNC but can’t find backup for that. Can someone help confirm this?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 7, 2016 6:35 PM
Comment #408272

ABC News confirmed the Soviets are responsible for hacking into the DNC. So, they have several years worth of Hillary’s emails wherein the POTUS used a pseudo name to communicate with Hillary. Little wonder his Russian reset is where it is.

Finally, Finally, we got them. Some 2k emails dumped from wikileaks.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 7, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #408273
Finally, Finally, we got them. Some 2k emails dumped from wikileaks. Posted by: roy ellis at October 7, 2016 7:38 PM

“we” being the russians, and “them” being the United States Government. You are a very confused individual. “ABC news confirmed?” Your hearing is failing you too, or something worse is happening. Get to a doctor immediately!

Posted by: oraoghaile at October 7, 2016 8:35 PM
Comment #408275

“We”?

Roy, think very carefully about where you want to go with this.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2016 10:22 PM
Comment #408276

Latest news has the RNC working behind the scenes to get Drumpf to step down as their nominee, with a month to go before the election. I guess they saw the debate and decided that Pence would make a better candidate.

Posted by: oraoghaile at October 7, 2016 11:02 PM
Comment #408277

Ora,
After the horrendous video of Trump making comments about women, the move to convince Trump to step down will grow even louder. What Trump said was awful. There is no question Pence would be a better candidate. It is not that Pence is that good. It is that Trump is that bad. What he said was about as offensive to women as it is possible to put into words. The only way to replace Trump is if he voluntarily removes himself from the running; however, early voting has already started.

Paul Ryan and the Chairman of the RNC have already disinvited Trump from an event tomorrow in WI. Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT) has pulled his endorsement. There is no way to make this acceptable to any female, no way. Every woman in the country is going to really, really despise Donald Trump tomorrow.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2016 11:41 PM
Comment #408278

Since you actually vote for the electors rather than the candidate, all the RNC has to do is get the electors to pledge their votes to their candidate. I think they’ve just given up on the presidency this time, and hope to regroup for 2020.

Posted by: oraoghaile at October 7, 2016 11:58 PM
Post a comment