This was not a debate with a candidate, but with an interchangeable establishment that could swap out Biden for Kamala without missing a beat.
By Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Magazine
What was supposed to be a presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris hosted by ABC News, instead became a debate between the former president, his current challenger, and ABC’s two moderators: David Muir and Linsey Davis.
Even as Kamala Harris lied about her positions on fracking, gun control, and Israel, Muir and Davis repeatedly jumped in to argue with Trump under the guise of ‘fact-checking’ him.
The 3-on-1 debate format may very well mark the end of mainstream media presidential debates. It also represented a new low in not just media bias, but election interference.
The media marks each year by giving the public new reasons to distrust it, and ABC News, Muir, and Davis were clearly so insecure about the performance of their candidate that they repeatedly felt called on to argue with Trump instead of letting Kamala rebut him.
ABC News, Muir, and Davis also had no trust in the voters to decide for themselves.
And so what was supposed to be a debate between two candidates instead became a debate between the establishment and an insurgent. Paradoxically this cut against efforts by the Kamala campaign to brand her an “underdog: and an insurgent candidate swimming upstream.
Her persistent line throughout the evening was to “turn the page” as if she were something new.
“It is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric,” she insisted. And then, “Let’s not go back. We’re not going back. It’s time to turn the page.”
Kamala urged, “let’s turn the page on this. Let’s not go back. Let’s chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past.” And finally, “Let’s turn the page and move forward.”
But what was Kamala turning the page from?
The only thing that Kamala brought to the debate was that Biden could not be a different style. The incessant smirks, head tilts, and uptalk were the new coat of paint on the same old policies.
The artificial focus group tested the “turn the page” line was an attempt to make an incumbent seem like an insurgent and the establishment seem like the fresh voice of change.
“It’s important to remind the former president you’re not running against Joe Biden, you’re running against me,” Kamala barked during the debate.
But what’s the difference between Kamala and Biden? Does she represent something different or the next phase of his administration? Where does she actually differ from him? And if she does, why was the DNC platform simply copied verbatim from the one Biden signed off on?
Kamala wasn’t actually offering anything more than the illusion of newness.
“So, she just started by saying she’s going to do this, she’s going to do that, she’s going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for 3 1/2 years. They’ve had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. They’ve had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn’t she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven’t done it. And you won’t do it,” Trump concluded.
Kamala came into the debate with the same approach as her campaign. Unburdened by her past views or her administration’s current positions, she recited contradictory memorized speeches that reflected whatever her pollsters thought the public might want to hear.
That meant accusing Trump of being soft on China, blaming him for her administration’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan and claiming that crime was down.
It also meant howlers like contending that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world” when American soldiers have been killed in Syria and wounded in Iraq, and just weeks ago took part in a raid in that same country.
None of the moderators thought that needed fact-checking.
Kamala claimed on the eve of 9/11 that January 6 was the “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” But the attacks of September 11 and the resurgence of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Afghanistan did not come up at the debate since it wasn’t nearly as important as abortion.
Instead, there was time for an extended conversation about abortion during which Kamala falsely claimed that women were being denied IVF procedures because of Trump.
ABC’s Linsey Davis did not see fit to argue with that but did argue with Trump about partial-birth abortion.
Asked about whether she supports any restrictions on killing children in the womb, Kamala refused to answer. Davis naturally did not see fit to follow up on that question.
“We’re not taking anybody’s guns away!” Kamala then claimed in what the NRA deemed to be “the most egregious lie in the history of presidential debates”.
And that’s understating it. The entire purpose of gun control is to restrict and then end future firearms sales, and then begin the process of taking away existing guns. Kamala had endorsed mandatory gun buybacks.
Kamala repeated the myth that there had been some “bipartisan deal” that would have secured the border, when in reality it was a Democrat proposal that would have kept illegal alien invaders flowing into the United States.
All of these lies and myths were not fact-checked, instead, they are the media’s own positions.
The presidential debate just brought home the fact that any interaction between a Republican, a conservative, and the media is a debate. The 3 on 1 debate reflected not just different views, but different realities.
The media was desperate to talk about abortion but showed little interest in inflation. ABC News pushed global warming but had nothing to say about September 11.
In this alternate reality and only there, Kamala can be a fresh new voice who is out to ‘turn the page’. But the administration hasn’t changed. Kamala is part of whatever team is running the country now.
The only thing Kamala seems to want to turn the page on is all her past positions.
Asked about her past calls to ban fracking and seize guns, Kamala claimed once more that “my values have not changed”. If Kamala’s values haven’t changed, then her real views haven’t changed either.
That’s something ABC News could have asked her about it if it was serious.
But the only thing ABC News and the rest of the media were serious about was beating Trump.
The same media pumping up Kamala had mounted the campaign to topple Biden and replace him with her. Kamala is not the candidate voted for by her own party but by the media.
This was not a debate with a candidate, but with an interchangeable establishment that could swap out Biden for Kamala without missing a beat.
And as the media’s candidate, ABC News, Muir and Davis tried to prop her up. They got her the nomination. And they did everything possible to try and help their candidate win.
In doing so the media showed its hand. And that may be a greater mistake than the media realizes.