It was not the knockout punch I hoped Donald Trump would deliver, but Wednesday night’s debate was the most enlightening of the three in the 2016 campaign.
For that we have moderator Chris Wallace to thank.
Hillary didn’t humiliate herself. Neither did Trump.
They were both asked tough questions – many of which were never asked on national television before.
So who was the big winner in the debate? Chris Wallace.
Hillary resorted to familiar talking points to deflect the incisive and smart questions:
- about what the leaked emails showed regarding her plans for “open borders” and the effective European Union-style merger of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, as she secretly told her backers at Goldman Sachs;
- about her position on the Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment in the Heller case, that upheld an individual right to bear arms;
- about her position supporting late-term abortion.
Trump was asked tough questions, too.
That’s good journalism.
The difference between this debate and the previous two was that Trump wasn’t debating multiple opponents.
In that regard, it gave Americans their first real chance to see a fair and balanced debate. I’ll put it a different way: This was the first debate that wasn’t “rigged.”
Having said that, it seemed to me that Wallace bent over backward not to interrupt Hillary, whereas that was not the case with Trump, who got far less talking time.
I didn’t use a stop watch, but that was my perception.
Will this debate make a difference on Election Day? I hope so. I think it represented the best opportunity Americans had to see both candidates confronted with valid and appropriate questions.
I am a partisan.
I support Donald Trump.
I believe Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to the Constitution and to a future of liberty and self-governance in America.
I believe she will create a monopoly of power in Washington, whereas Trump is the only chance we have to prevent that, I’ll use Trump’s favorite word, “disaster.”
America is really headed in the direction of “disaster.”
If we want to continue the direction America has been headed in for far too long, then, by all means, we should all support Hillary Clinton.
If, instead, we want to try an alternative path with fresh ideas, we should support Donald Trump.
I think the choice is clear – and more clear after this debate than the previous two.
About Trump’s statement that he would not necessarily accept without challenge the outcome of the election, that doesn’t bother me.
It’s not unprecedented.
In 2000, then Vice President Al Gore challenged the outcome of the election.
I don’t recall Hillary Clinton being horrified by that decision – even if the basis for that decision was largely based on the fact that Gore won more votes than George W. Bush. That was the law of the land.
I didn’t hear Trump say he would put together an army of discontented supporters and occupy the White House. What I assumed he was saying was that he would consider his legal options, which is perfectly appropriate.
I suspect, as I write this column, just minutes after the debate has ended, that much will be made of his comment by what we euphemistically call “the mainstream media.” That’s what they do. That’s what they have done throughout this campaign. That’s what I suspect they will continue to do right through Election Day.
Now the decision about who will become our next president is in the hands of voters and the hand of God.
I pray that we are permitted to have one last chance to preserve the greatest experiment in liberty and self-governance the world has ever known.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].