By
J. Dan Rothwell
Author, Practically Speaking (Oxford University Press)
As a former college debate coach and professor of communication studies for almost five decades, I experience enormous frustration when watching these presidential “debates.” There are so many missed opportunities, especially by Hillary Clinton, to demolish Donald the whiner-in-chief Trump. Let me briefly comment on last night’s debate by offering not just a critique of Hillary’s rhetoric, but suggestions regarding how she could have been so much better than she was.
First, consider Trump’s repeated “30 years” of doing nothing argument. Hillary finally, at the end of the “debate” responded well with a litany of accomplishments during those 30 years. Why has she waited until the end of the second debate to push her accomplishments? Why did she merely drop into her lengthy response that she was a sponsor or co-sponsor of more than 400 pieces of legislation during her time in the U.S. Senate? Trump’s 30-years of nothing is effectively countered by 400+ pieces of legislation, but the more important point that Hillary misses is that she is not a dictator who can, by fiat, demand legislative changes. The narrative that continues to escape Democrat’s strategy is Republican obstructionism. If Republicans could effectively thwart President Obama with obstruction, how would Hillary be able, as a single senator among 100, be able to crash through the wall of Republican control of Congress? Trump’s assertion on 30 years of do-nothingness sounds like a strong argument until you respond to it effectively.
Second, Hillary’s response to Trump’s vile, obscene video that reveals a predatory old man who letches after attractive women and cannot control his sexual impulses was reasonably effective. I would have counseled her, however, to take her response on step further—“Donald claims that he never apologizes because he is never wrong; so what are we to make of this convenient apology now? Is he truly contrite? The American people can make their own judgment.”
Third, her response to the deleted emails is defensive and not well formulated. She should have a quick list of the salient facts at the ready. Her answers to this repeated question has never been satisfactory. Get it together for the third debate—please!!!
Fourth, her response to Trump’s wild and mostly factually incorrect claims about the Affordable Care Act was pretty good. Her answer was focused, well organized, and easy to understand. Trump’s retort “block grants to states” was ineffective and glib. Block grants do nothing without mandates that the Affordable Care Act already includes. Without the mandates on coverage, caps, etc. the states would be free to use the block grants to increase profits for insurance companies while decreasing coverage and excluding those with pre-existing conditions as defined by insurance companies.
Fifth, Trump’s typical Republican nonsense that Hillary wants to increase everyone’s taxes is an outright lie. Hillary handled it pretty well by clarifying her position. I would have counseled her to hammer Trump immediately that what he claimed is false and has been corrected repeatedly, then continue with the answer she gave.
Sixth, Trump hung himself on the Islamaphobia question. He repeated his desire to profile Muslims for “extreme vetting”—a completely nonsense phrase that cannot have any practical application. This is Trumpian noise, nothing more. His position on Syrian refugees is heartless and fear mongering. Hillary countered fairly effectively, but I would have pushed harder on his heartlessness.
Seventh, the Wikileaks paid speeches issue was not handled well by Hillary. The Clintons have become wealthy giving speeches for fat fees, but they have also contributed $23 million to charity from 2001 to 2015. Exactly how much money has Trump given to Charity? Nothing since 2008 as far as anyone investigating his wealth can determine. But it is hypocritical for Trump to rail against the speaking fees when everyone knows that Trump would gladly accept millions to give speeches without questioning whom pays the fees.
Eighth, Trump’s not paying any federal taxes for 18 years was handled pretty well by Hillary. I would have counseled her to be a bit more personal in her response about the consequences of him paying zero federal taxes. If Trump’s previous response that this proves he is “smart,” then apparently everyone else who pays their taxes is stupid. Also, if everyone could qualify for the Trumpian privilege of avoiding federal taxes, we would have no military at all, no Homeland Security, no federal aid to education, etc. Also, losing almost a billion dollars in one year reveals that Trump is a lousy businessman.
Ninth, Trump’s ridiculous statement that “you were in total control with the White House” regarding the tragedy in Syria should have been easily dismissed as the ignorance of Trump. The Secretary of State can give advice but does not make any of the final decisions regarding foreign policy. The president sets policy and makes decisions that may contradict Hillary’s advice. Trump doesn’t seem to know how our government functions. Hammer him on his ignorance of basic civics. When Trump switched to Mosul instead of responding to the Aleppo tragedy, Hillary should have pounced. Again, illuminate Trump’s ignorance. The question was about Aleppo not Mosul. All Hillary needed to do was remind listeners: “Notice that Donald didn’t answer what he would do about Aleppo. Apparently, he is content to let the slaughter continue without lifting a finger to help.”
Tenth, regarding the “deplorables” remark by Hillary, Trump got all puffed up about how she has insulted millions of Americans. She began by reminding everyone that she apologized for the comment. I would have added that Trump claims that he doesn’t ever apologize, and he has a lot to apologize for with his racist, sexist, nativist statements. Then I would have reminded listeners that the deplorables she was referring to originally were the White supremacists and bigots who have flocked to Trump’s campaign. Challenge Trump to repudiate these bigots—“Will you now repudiate and disavow these bigots Donald, or will you continue to court favor with them?” Put him on the defensive.
Finally, regarding the brief Benghazi assertion by Trump that Ambassador Stevens made 600 requests for help, that is a lie. Hillary, however, should personalize this by noting emphatically that Stevens was a personal friend. She did not, and would not, leave him stranded if there was any way to rescue him.
I would have had Hillary close by noting that Trump offered mostly vague goals instead of concrete plans. Thus, he is in fact all words and no action. Final close: “What has Donald Trump ever done for ANYONE ever besides help himself?”