In case you missed the recent presidential debate, you might consider watching the final scene of the 1954 movie The Caine Mutiny. Captain Queeg, played by Humphrey Bogart, is the unstable skipper, who reaches the apex of his mental breakdown during cross-examination. Queeg’s obsession with the key and who consumed the strawberries became his undoing.
The Republican presidential nominee’s obsession with illegal immigration bore a resemblance to Queeg. Regardless of the question, liberated from the intellectual restrictions placed when one has a lucid train of thought, he rambled his way back to illegal immigration. He publicly repeated a debunked social media report that Haitians were invading unsuspecting communities and eating pets. He cited television as the unimpeachable source to support his claim.
The presidential debates in the 21st century are many things to many people. It is unclear if they can be classified as debates. They bear little similarity to the Oxford Union format. But they do serve as an audition for the most powerful democratically elected job in the world.
While the current presidential debate format does not allow for in-depth policy discussions, it does provide indications of character and temperament. The Republican presidential nominee failed on both metrics.
It is more difficult to secure an outright win in a presidential debate than it is to lose. Not only did the Republican presidential nominee lose, he lost badly. If this were a boxing match, the referee would have had no choice but to stop it.
The Republican presidential nominee provided several cringe-worthy moments. He was unwilling to state unequivocally his support for Ukraine to win its war against Russia thereby offering tacit support for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He defended hosting the Taliban at Camp David.
But the split screen may have been his ultimate undoing. He was Richard Nixon without political acumen.
In the 1960 presidential debate, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, many felt the television visual of Kennedy had as much to do with his perceived victory in the first debate as the substance. A majority listening on radio felt Nixon was the winner.
In the recent debate, the Republican presidential nominee did himself no favors visually. He was hunched over, looking angry, tired, and petulant. Conversely, his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, gave the appearance of someone who wanted to be there.
While the Republican nominee excelled in the role of curmudgeon, never looking at his opponent or speaking directly to the American people, Harris did both. She blended the perfect mixture of strength, understanding of the issues, and compassion in making the case for why she should sit behind the resolute desk.
Harris was most effective at leaving titillating breadcrumbs that the Republican presidential nominee found irresistible. Like Pavlov’s dog, each time Harris rang the bell, he responded predictably. He was clearly agitated when Harris suggested military leaders who served in his administration considered him a “disgrace.” He was more comfortable responding to trivial matters that had nothing to do with his vision for the future. He revealed himself as uniquely unprepared for the debate.
It was deeply troubling when the Republican presidential nominee cited only Hungarian strongman, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as his source to validate the respect he commands globally.
If one is honest this is the same presidential debate performance he has given each time. But there were two differences.
First, returning to a boxing metaphor styles make fights. Harris’ prosecutor style was tailor-made to combat the Republican presidential nominee’s bombastic, mendacious, and ill-prepared musings. Second, the shtick is old. He hasn’t updated his act since 2016. What happens when the tactics of the one-trick pony exceed the expiration date?
With myriad unhinged performances to his credit, his oft-repeated claim that some states allow for abortion after the baby is born, which is called infanticide and is illegal in every state, disqualifies him as someone to entrust with the nuclear football. Can we afford a president making major decisions who is immune to facts not to his liking? Can we afford a president who is unwilling, or worse, unable to read the daily briefings?
During the debate, the Republican presidential nominee did not show remorse for the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power that occurred on January 6. Without a scintilla of proof to support his claims, he maintains the 91 criminal indictments against him issued by federal, state, and local governments were coordinated efforts by the Biden Administration.
That Harris got the better of the Republican presidential nominee in the debate does not mean she will be victorious in November. Because of the Electoral College’s unique quirk, he can win without receiving majority support. But that doesn’t change what the recent debate showed him to be. As Mammy offered in the movie Gone With the Wind, the Republican presidential nominee is just a “mule in horse harness” who may put on bombastic airs but is fooling fewer people as Election Day nears.
Sad and truly disturbing to think that he could still win which is why I wish she had not reflected what she was thinking about his performance so clearly. It was she was telegraphing to the audience, and people really like to make up their own minds. They're stubborn that way. They resist being persuaded.
Excellent commentary.👏🏾👏🏾