Winning the Point

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Sept 2016

It is hard to have a serious debate with a person who is prepared to lie through her teeth to win even a small point at issue.  Two examples of lying to win trivial points occurred during the Hillary-Trump debate on Monday night.  One was by Hillary, and the other was by Lester Holt.  I’m going to put Lester’s down to falsehood rather than a deliberate lie, because his research was poor on a very minor point.  Lester’s problem was that he made too big an issue of it.

The lie Hillary told to win a point occurred when Donald Trump said that she had previously supported the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, and didn’t change her mind about it until Trump and Bernie started getting political traction by opposing it.  Hillary denied that she ever supported the deal.  When Trump replied that she had called the TPP the “gold standard” in trade deals, she shook her head, smiled, and denied it.  Lester Holt let the moment pass.

This moment of lying by Hillary was her low moment in the debate in the opinion of Charles Krauthammer, who on Special Report last night said,

“In fact she did call it “the gold standard.” And this one exchange, this one issue, exemplifies all that’s wrong with the Clinton candidacy. She obviously is not saying the truth. She changed her mind on it, which can happen, but it’s obvious that she changed her mind only because she was being hit by Sanders on this issue, and because Trump was having such success in coming out against trade, and all public opinion has turned against trade.”


Hillary could have said that in 2012 the deal looked like it was shaping into the gold standard of trade deals, but between then and 2016 the deal did not finalize as she had hoped and expected, and so she’s changed her mind.  But she didn’t say that.  She had to lie in classic Clinton fashion.  Hillary’s change of mind on TPP is a minor point, yet she felt compelled to lie to deny Trump his point.

Lester Holt had his moment of falsehood on a minor point when he tried to press Donald Trump on his alleged support for the war in Iraq before it was launched in 2003, only changing his mind when it became unpopular on the left in 2004.  Lester pressed hard, seeming to quote authoritatively from his research notes while insisting that Trump had at one point supported the war in Iraq in 2003.  Trump, on his feet, insisted Holt consult with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto of Fox News, with whom Trump had had interviews prior to the war (i.e. in 2003) in which he expressed a coolness towards the venture.  Trump also raised his conversation on the Howard Stern Show before the war, in which he expressed a cavalier coolness towards a war in Iraq.

Trump was not in public service in 2002, as Hillary Clinton was.  He did not vote for the Iraq war or for the AUMF – the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as Hillary Clinton did as Senator from New York.  It is inconsequential what Trump thought about the war in Iraq in 2002, and in the case of Hillary, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Holt thought he could pin Trump in a lie, and that is why he pressed so hard, though why he didn’t press Hillary over the TPP is not clear.  But Holt was wrong.  The next day, the Fox News website hammered Holt over the falsehood he tried to advance in front of a hundred million viewers.  I thought Trump handed Holt his head in his reply, but precious time was wasted hacking it off and defending against a falsehood over a minor point.

Another troublesome episode occurred when Holt accused Trump of racism for pressing Barack Obama, America's first African-American president (if you weren't aware) to release his long-form birth certificate and end the debate about his natural-born legitimacy to be president.  In the course of formulating the question it never occurred to Holt that Obama should probably had done it himself without requiring a political campaign by Trump to accomplish it.  It was easy to do, and when done, ended the controversy that Obama had used to his advantage from time to time.  Regrettably, Trump did not think to mention that Obama was half white, and so it's not racist.  He might have tempted Holt to foolishly raise the racist "one-drop" rule.

The takeaway from this episode is not the sordid way in which the media advanced a falsehood against Trump and failed to fact-check Hillary when she was plainly lying through her teeth.  The takeaway is that it is hard to have a civilized and reasonable debate in such circumstances, and the TV audience ought to be aware of it.  It becomes no longer a debate but a vicious spectacle.  Hillary was her smarmy, smiling, lying self, while the Chairman of the Board was having to keep his cool in face of an attack by the moderator.

There are two more presidential debates scheduled, and Trump promises to hit Hillary harder.  I hope he does not.  People are shocked when Trump gets vicious, but they expect smiling viciousness from Hillary and her coterie in small doses.  Once too often, and she is finished.

Trump should hit back by all means, but should take refuge in the fact that Hillary regards him as deplorable, along with at least fifty million other Americans whom Trump stands with and represents.

-30-