Blaska Policy Werkes

Trump won on the issues …

… but lost the debate. The President was petulant, angry, and unlikeable. Unpresidential after all these four years.

Second takeaway: Joe Biden is not senile — the desperate line of attack that Tucker Carlson (in particular) has been pushing for months. The former veep was sharp, stayed on message, looked voters in the eye and spoke to them. Trump, despite innumerable interruptions, could not rattle him. Anyways, Biden did not pee himself, insofar as we know.

Doesn’t mean Trump is wrong on the issues — he’s not. Biden could not/would not answer a key question — would he eschew packing the Supreme Court? Trump scored again when he pointed out that law enforcement endorses him, not the Democrat. He landed a haymaker when he pointed out that Biden had never used his influence with Democrats to restore order in dysfunctional Portland and other cities. The Hunter Biden card is potent. Keep playing it.

The Left is all a-twitter over Trump’s comment, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” The Left is always certain brown shirts are staging a putsch in a beer hall somewhere near you. A fair reading of the statement is “stand back and stand (aside).” It is the Left that is staging the kristallnacht, demanding the proper salute, and terrorizing neighborhoods. It is also fair to ask that if police are standing back and standing aside, who is left to defend life and property?

In any event, the indentured servants at Stately Blaska Manor backed away from the b&w Philco with 15 minutes left in the debate. Anyone know if it devolved into fisticuffs?

Biden’s best line, to Trump: “Shut up, man.”

Pundit quote of the Day: “Watching Trump was like being cornered by some over-sized, over-bearing drunk at a party who spills his beer on you while insisting that Lee Harvey Oswald is still alive.” — never-Trumper Bret Stephens, (failing) New York Times.

Blaska’s Bottom Line: We do like a fighter but Trump could learn from The Greatest: float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Instead, the President was a rhinoceros with a sledge hammer. ADDED: Chris Wallace was fair (the Far Left hated him as much as did my friends on the Right) but he could have just dropped the puck and let the two duke it out. Please do not censor debates!

What was YOUR favorite/worst moment of the debate?

You know, ‘the thing’

The indentured servants at the Stately Manor are wrapping fresh tin foil around the b&w Philco’s rabbit ears … they are so watching the debate tonight (09-29-2020). … Chris Wallace will ask the hard questions.

⇒ To Sleepy Joe: Is Amy Coney Barrett’s religious belief fair game?

⇒ To Trump: What is your net worth and — if the NY Times is wrong — how much taxes have you paid?

⇒ Trump to Biden: When do you have to be back at the home?

Babylon Bee predicts Trump’s winning strategy for the debates: allow Biden to talk for the full 90 minutes.

The case for accepting defeat on Roe

What has the Right been saying for the past 47 years? Faced with a sixth conservative justice in Amy Coney Barrett, our … acquaintances are forced to drop their face masks. “Maybe it is time to face the fact that abortion access will be fought for in legislatures, not courts,” writes a contributor to the (failing) New York Times.

Often forgotten is that R.B.G. herself had decided that Roe was a mistake. In 1992, she gave a lecture musing that the country might be better off if the Supreme Court had written a narrower decision and opened up a “dialogue” with state legislatures, which were trending “toward liberalization of abortion statutes” (to quote the Roe court).

Roe “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue,” Justice Ginsburg argued. In the process, “a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

What Ginsburg called Roe’s “divisiveness” was instrumental in the rise of the American right. — Law prof Joan C. Williams. 

Ann of Althouse on Trump’s taxes: 

“I read the whole [New York Times editorial], and here’s what bothers me. First, they suggest that there are too many loopholes in the tax code that rich people take advantage of. …”

It makes me think of my old law school tax professor who liked to say that a tax return is an offer and you see if the government accepts it or makes a counteroffer. Trump made his offer in 2010, and the government accepted it, and sent him $72.9 million refund but also kept investigating. It’s 10 years later, and they’re still hovering over him, threatening to take it back — with interest and penalties.

The NYT … speaks of “the profound inequities of the tax code,” but the editors never get around to proposing eliminating loopholes and complexity. Why not? Is it because what they want is to get Trump, and changing the law prospectively is irrelevant to that goal?

The dogma is strong with this one

Letter from Trump’s EPA to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles in 15 years:

“California’s record of rolling blackouts — unprecedented in size and scope — coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand when you can’t even keep the lights on today.”

Do YOU think Trump will go kinder and gentler tonightor loaded for bear Biden?