A brief Katie update: She had another good day yesterday, and though the docs haven’t guaranteed anything, she may be going home today! If she does, she will have spent the last 27 days in the hospital. Thanks again for all of your very kind words, CO nation!
Moving on to the national and world events that are less important than my daughter’s health…
I loved Bret Baier’s interview with Kamala! Before it happened, a lot of people were dissing Baier, suggesting that he’s some kind of RINO who would go easy on Harris, which never made sense to me. (The only Fox that I routinely watch is Special Report and the first 10 minutes of Gutfeld, and I generally like Baier.)
One can always quibble over one detail or another, but I thought Baier did to Kamala what JD did to Walz: pressed her on details and pushed her into revealing her essential emptiness. She demonstrated the main danger of avoiding challenging interviews, which is that if you ever finally face one, you crumble. She dodged questions, squirmed, got angry, and tried to filibuster and run out the clock
For me there were two highlights. The first was when Baier wrong-footed her into addressing Biden’s dementia. He started by pointing out that Kamala has accused Trump of being mentally unstable, which was bait that she bit hard on, diving into her talking points about how unbalanced Trump is.
Then Bret segued into, “When did you first notice that President Biden’s mental faculties were diminished?” clearly catching her off guard. She furrowed her brows and paused for what seemed like a minute. You could almost see the cartoon thought-bubble appear over her head: “D’oh!”
She finally said that she’s watched Biden in various contexts, and that, “He has the judgment and experience to do exactly what he has done in making very important decisions.”
Yes. He’s made a series of horrifically bad decisions, and by now I think we all know that he has the judgment and experience to do exactly that. Even Kamala seemed to sense the danger there, so she immediately pivoted to, “Joe Biden is not on the ballot.”
Which begs the obvious question: If he’s so fantastically capable of being president, why did you and your party bum-rush him out of the Oval like Bill Clinton tossing out a half-naked intern when Hillary was clomping down the hallway toward him?
The second highlight was when Baier nailed her on her previous support for making taxpayers pay for sex change operations for criminals and illegal aliens. After he showed a 2019 clip of her advocating that very unpopular position and asked if she still supports it, her response was clearly a dodge: “I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump followed.”
Of course she was lying. As California AG, she lobbied to get rid of the existing law that disallowed taxpayer-funding mutilations, and as president, Trump fought in the courts against that change. Baier countered with that info, and pointed out that as president, she would have a say in the matter, rather than having to passively “follow the law.”
When he cited Trump’s argument that he opposed that law, poor Que Mala crowned herself with a dunce cap and launched a thousand devastating attack ads against her, saying, “You know, you’ve gotta take responsibility for what happened in your administration.”
Yes, you cackling doofus. Yes you do.
If I were a Trump advisor, I’d start an ad with the clip from the View in which Kamala was asked what she would do differently from Biden, and said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.” Then I’d put together a 30-second montage of the last 4 years – thousands of illegals crossing the border, Afghanistan falling, Biden screaming through his Reichstag speech, damning stats on inflation and crime – followed by her statement that “you’ve gotta take responsibility for what happened in your administration.” (I’m Martin Simpson, and I approve this message.)
It’s worth noting that in spite of the ridiculous obfuscation that Que Mala has become infamous for, the woman is actually capable of speaking clearly when she wants to. Consider her aforementioned support for taxpayer-funded phallectomies (if that’s not a word, it should be) or her well-known 2019 statement that, “There’s no question, I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
Those are concise, grammatically understandable sentences, completely different from her usual syntactical goulash. Because in those sentences, she was telling the truth about what she really believes.
Except. Even when she accidentally bumps into a bit of truth-telling, she still resorts to one of the most irritating figures of (dishonest) speech.
No, I’m not referring to “Let’s be clear,” which virtually always precedes a miasmic verbal fog of such suffocating vagueness that it could choke a horse.
And no, I’m not referring to “speaking the truth,” as in “Speaking truth to power,” or “Speaking our truth,” or “Speaking the truth about American history,” etc. – which always precedes a whole bunch o’ lyin’.
I’m talking about,“We need to have that conversation.”
If you watch Kamala’s speeches from her California days all the way through her Hindenburg disaster of a 2019 campaign, you’ll see her talking to various far-left groups or groupies. And they would invariably ask her about some proposal from the farthest left fringe: “Would you agree that every black person in America should receive $10 million in reparations?” or “Would you support immediately freeing every person of color in prison, since they are obviously the innocent victims of racist Amerikka?” or “Do you agree that we should confiscate all of the earnings of everyone who makes more than $500K per year?”
Instead of giving the politically smart answer – “What’chu talkin’ bout, Willis? NO!” – or the likely true answer from her heart – “YES!” – she always used the same weaselly phrase: “I think we need to have that conversation.”
Ugh. That’s clearly such an obvious attempt to simultaneously deceive both the low-IQ extremists in front of her (“I’m with you!”) and the sane but gullible people who are watching at home (“Don’t worry, I’m not that extreme”).
I hate that phrase, even as I must grudgingly acknowledge that it can be useful when you believe something that you might not want to openly admit.
Okay, I’m going to need to write another column shortly, because I haven’t even gotten to half of the stories I wanted to talk about, including the karmically satisfying death of Yahoo Sinwar and the hunting prowess of Tim “Elmer Fudd” Walz.
But I have to end with one of my favorite Florida stories, in which a bad guy is being brought to justice, and Ron DeSantis is proving himself to be a boss. NOT UNEXPECTEDLY!
On October 9th, as hurricane Milton was bearing down on Florida, a state trooper rescued a frightened dog who had been chained to a fence and abandoned alongside Interstate 75. The dog was trembling and growling, standing in water that had already risen to his belly when the trooper found and freed him.
Few things make me angrier than cruelty to animals, and this story was outrageous. I figured that in the devastating aftermath of the third giant storm in as many months, that dog’s heartless owner would never be brought to justice. But I live in the free state of Florida, and I’d foolishly underestimated our law enforcement and our governor.
When a reporter asked DeSantis about the story, the guv started out perfectly, as is his wont: “First of all, what kind of an animal would just leave a dog chained to a pole in the middle of a hurricane?” After praising the work of the FHP for rescuing the dog and expressing the confidence that many people will “compete” for the chance to give it a good home, he expressed the right amount of moral outrage.
“I hope they find the person who did it, and that person should have the book thrown at him. We’ve got very good laws in Florida against animal cruelty.” Then he gave a shout-out to the excellent police working dogs that will be helping in the storm. (Insert Shane Gillis doing his Trump impression here: “Beautiful dogs. Talented dogs.”)
A short time later, DeSantis gave an update. The dog was going to get a good home, and had been renamed “Trooper.” Then the kicker: “I’m proud to announce that the authorities have identified the dog’s former owners, and [a state attorney] is now pursuing animal charges against the individual.”
The creep in question, 23-year-old Giovanni Garcia, is charged with a felony that could bring up to 5 years in prison. State officials are calling for changing the laws to allow for harsher penalties against people who abandon their animals during an emergency.
Cassie the Wonder Dog and I approve this legislation, and neither of us thinks that 5 years in jail is enough for this bum.
Am I saying that Garcia should be chained to a post in the bottom of an empty pool, which should then be filled up with water that slowly rises over his head, killing him in the same way that he’d callously left his dog to die?
Say it with me, CO nation:
I think we need to have that conversation.
Hamas delenda est!
Martin Simpson 