The Full Crowley

In the second presidential election debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on October 16, 2012, CNN moderator Candy Crowley sensed that Obama, coming off a dismal initial September 26 debate, was again floundering. 

Romney was driving home the valid point that the Obama Administration had inadequately prepared the American mission in Benghazi for likely terrorist attacks. And such laxity resulted in a horrific attack and the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. 

Yet in the wake of the attacks, Team Obama denied that the killing of four Americans was indeed an act of terror. Instead, it fed the public a transparently but politically correct false narrative of a spontaneous riot in reaction to a video posted by a purported right-wing Egyptian residing on American soil. 

Yet in the debate, Obama retorted: “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.” 

Romney pounced: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration—is that what you’re saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”  

Romney was correct. Obama took two weeks before he eventually jettisoned his administration’s concocted “spontaneous demonstrations” party line that his subordinates—Susan Rice in particular, to her eternal embarrassment—had been peddling to the American people. 

Yet in the debate, Obama flailed with a weak, “Get the transcript.” 

In truth, Obama in his comments after the attack had simply offered, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for”—a deliberate effort not to name Benghazi specifically in the context of a terrorist act.  

Obama did not, as he was finally forced to do two weeks later, tie specifically the Benghazi deaths to the premeditated attacks of radical Islamic terrorists. No matter. Moderator Crowley jumped in with her instant fact-check: “He did, in fact, sir. So, let me—let me call it an act of terror.” 

Obama was delighted for the reprieve and wagged with delight at the coming out of his debate partner, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” On cue, she obsequiously complied, “He did call it an act of terror.”  

In other words, Crowley became a real-time, partisan fact-checker, rather than a moderator—but of a peculiar sort that did not fully assume her new role until Obama himself was desperate for a bailout.   

Crowley’s crazy logic apparently was that Obama really had meant Benghazi when he deliberately talked only in vague terms about generic acts of terror shortly after the attack, but then for the next two weeks nonetheless had allowed his subordinates to float the trial balloon of an alternate reality video, before giving it up when the evidence made peddling that fiction impossible. 

For much of the debate, Crowley had further tried to massage a comeback for Obama after his disastrous first outing. She cut Romney off far more frequently than she did Obama. She alone had picked the townhall questioners. 

And the questions they posed were mostly asymmetrical, such as the following one addressed to Romney: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush Administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?” 

In the debate’s aftermath, Obama supporters crowed; Romney sulked that Crowley had hijacked the debate. And Crowley was never asked to moderate anything important again. 

CNN offered various defenses. But, in fact, Crowley’s career more or less ended that night and two years later she went into retirement, her finale forever a reminder of what not to do as a debate moderator and an example of media bias. 

Why Not Lose Nobly? 

Something similar occurred with Fox News moderator Chris Wallace in the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 

Like Crowley, he lost control of the debate. And similarly, much of the crosstalk grew out of Wallace’s asymmetrical “prove you are not guilty” questioning. 

Wallace’s gotcha technique was to spur the candidates with a “scandal” question to rev them up, and then after two minutes, abruptly and vainly try to cut them off—as if to spur and whip a bronco and then demand on command that the infuriated horse stop his obnoxious bucking. 

Trump, in the manner of Mitt Romney in 2012, was the more frequent debate interrupter, furious likewise about the similar imbalance of both the questions and the moderator’s call for order. For much of the night, Wallace grimaced as he asked Biden to explain a few misdemeanors while demanding Trump defend his presumed felonies. 

And Wallace seemed stunned that Trump did not conduct himself as Romney had in 2012 with Crowley—like a philosophical pilot muttering “such is life,” as his sabotaged and powerless plane nose-dived into the oblivion below. 

Financial scandals? Wallace zeroed in on the Trump tax returns, the media scandal du jour—without a word about Hunter Biden’s also breaking story of pocketing $3.5 million from the wife of the ex-mayor of Moscow even as his father was vice president. Could he not have at least mentioned such “Russian collusion”? 

Race? It was not surprising that Wallace did not ask Biden why he has a habitual habit of denigrating blacks, with his riffs like “you ain’t’ black,” “junkie,” and the Corn Pop yarns. Instead, Wallace went back decades to an obscure  Biden “predator” quote and then did not press Biden much when he simply stonewalled. 

When Wallace, learning and forgetting nothing, turned to Trump on race, he dug up his own old 2016 debate question. And again, Wallace deliberately edited the Charlottesville quote by truncating Trump’s explicit condemnation of white supremacists and Klansmen. Wallace, for the nth time, was trying to force Trump to confess that he condemns white supremacists, in always a new way different from the various times Trump had done so in the past—reminding us that Wallace’s aim was not to find the answer but to continue to raise the question. 

One might suggest Wallace was going the full “when did you stop beating your wife” routine—except our corrupt media had already ruined that old trope, by actually previously suggesting in June 2018 that the first lady may have been tardy in returning to work after an operation, in order to hide bruises from her abusive presidential husband. 

When Wallace turned on Trump on the matter of honoring the verdict of the election, he honed in again on Trump’s past worries and statements about voter fraud and irregularities endangering the sanctity of the voter. 

Fine. But the obvious parallel question to Biden was to ask what he was doing in the Oval Office when, in January 2017, the Obama Administration plotted to take out the national security advisor designate? If Wallace was worried about honoring the protocols of elections and transfer of power, then surely he might have asked Biden why, on his vice-presidential watch, were the FBI, Justice Department, and CIA weaponized and used to spread the fraudulent Steele dossier (paid for by Hillary Clinton and now known to have been mostly fantasies, cooked up by the huckster Steele drawing on a Russian operative working at the liberal Brookings Institution), to destroy a campaign, a transition, and a president? 

Instead, silence. 

But if Romney chattered in crosstalk as Crowley indulged Obama, Trump, as his way, thundered at Wallace’s similar indulgence of Biden. A miffed Romney went out quietly, an enraged Trump roared and stayed put. 


The other day at a press conference, another Fox reporter, White House correspondent John Roberts, let loose with yet another demand that Trump condemn white supremacy—the domestic twin to the monotonous Russian collusion hoax questioning. 

Roberts insisted that Trump provide a “definitive and unambiguous” denunciation for the thousandth time, as if observers were ignorant that continually asking the same question after receiving answers deemed unwelcome is not about discovering the truth, but virtue-signaling the smearing, as in, “Will you finally assert that you are not now and never have been a Communist?” 

The more Trump hammers Putin—more sanctions, deadly weapons sent to Ukraine, Russian mercenaries killed in Syria, beefed-up NATO and Pentagon budgets, cheap U.S. oil crashing Russia’s main source of revenue, damning the German-Russian pipeline, getting out of ossified missile treaties, and the more Trump is exonerated by the inspector general, congressional inquiries, and the Mueller report—the more he is accused of Putin collusion. 

So too, the more Trump denies he is a white supremacist, and the more his economic agenda is geared to offering minorities economic empowerment, fair drug sentencing, inner-city charter schools and help for black colleges, the more virulent the supremacist questioning. The obvious psychological diagnosis is that those who once canonized Obama’s Russian reset or said nothing as Biden talked down to and insulted blacks, the more they project these pathologies onto Trump. 

Roberts droned on like a North Korean reeducation camp inquisitor, rephrasing ad nauseam the same demand for a false confession. In answering, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnaney blew him out of the water. Unlike Roberts, she came equipped with all sorts of citations not just noting Trump’s prior denunciations of supremacists, but by doing so in such detail to reveal Roberts’ own obsessions. 

Afterward, there were natural social media push backs against Roberts, and in response he melted down on live TV, snapping, “For all of you on Twitter who are hammering me for asking the question, I don’t care. Stop deflecting. Stop blaming the media. I’m tired of it.”  Was that the news? 

A crusading journalist grows tired of that tiny pushback? Roberts apparently is unable to endure a fraction of the bothersome questioning of motives that he so doggedly has imputed to others. 

Roberts is a distinguished journalist. But he will now be mostly remembered for his press conference puerile petulance and later meltdown. His hysterias reflect only agendas, not a desire for truth. He likes hitting others but has a glass jaw. And he offers a reminder to us that the beltway gotcha media is narcissistic, adolescent, and incestuous. Who could trust such people to report the news dispassionately? 

Media Medical Madness 

When Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19, the media went berserk with all sorts of unhinged themes: did not Trump deserve the infection due to his recklessness (as if the 210,000 dead or CNN’s Chris Cuomo earned by their recklessness their infections, too?) Would not the virus make Trump now eat crow? Would he step down? Would he bow out of the debate? Was the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett over before it could even begin? 

Amid that hysteria, what was Wallace’s post facto reaction to his moderator’s role at the debate? 

He blamed Trump alone for the melee, never reexamined his own asymmetrical questioning, and seemed incapable of self-examination of his Crowley-like passive-aggressive performance. 

Just hours after Trump had tested positive for COVID-19, a now-Dr. Wallace went on a tear, diagnosing about why and how Trump was infected—without any iota of information about the severity of the infection, its prognosis, or how exactly a number of officials, many at the Amy Coney Barrett open-air White House reception, seem likewise later to have become sickened, masks or no masks.

In animated tones (“Wear the damn mask!”) an increasingly flustered Wallace variously blamed, in unhinged Don Lemon-fashion, Trump’s infection on his own laxity in not always wearing a mask. He insinuated that the White House might not be forthcoming with accurate news. He castigated White House advisor Scott Atlas as incompetent on grounds he lacked a specialization in epidemiology.  

In other words, with no information, no facts, and no expertise, Dr. Wallace was now judge, jury, and executioner pontificating about why the president was singularly culpable for his own medical fate—apparently unlike the similarly infected millions worldwide, and the thousands of local, state, and federal government officials who have been sickened, including many senators and over a dozen congressional representatives. Did they all meet their fates because, on occasion, they brought it on themselves by not wearing a mask? Or were they without masks because they saw Trump sometimes on TV without one?

When, after a poor public performance that has lasting consequences, a marquee journalist hits the airways to perform an encore performance of errors, to meltdown childishly, to replay his prior blunders in self-interested fashion, and to protest the unfairness of his self-created debacle, and by his continued obsessions proves that indeed his critics are correct that he is obsessed, then he has gone the full Crowley—with all that such a fate entails.

Whether these journalists know it or not, in the American mind they are already retired before they have even retired.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books).

Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

46 responses to “The Full Crowley

    • All these Washington reporters are closet liberals as is all mainstream media. Fox just makes big bucks on its opinion programs. Why kill the golden calf of cash. I imagine if Fox got rid of its nightly line up some new network would appear And scoop them up.

      • No closet here. It’s all done in plain sight for partisan reasons and everyone knows it and knows why.

  • Yes Victor, Chris Wallace is unofficially retired, but not intentionally. He still hasn’t realized it’s over.
    Wallace is following in Megyn Kelly’s footsteps. As a journalist blatantly biased against Republicans and their candidate yet working for a conservative news outlet, he now has no home. The liberal media will never accept him and we will never trust him again.
    He had a good gig going as perhaps the last honest and non-partisan mainstream journalist that didn’t automatically dismiss and disparage conservatives, but alas, it was all a show.

    • Wallace hasn’t been able to hide his bias against trump since day 1. Haven’t watched him in several years. Just another clueless left wing hack.

    • And now the CDC says lockdowns are bad and statistics say masks dont work.

  • Brevity is the soul of wit my good man. Bravo!

    President Trump has an almost supernatural animal spirit that shines the klieg light of truth on the corrupt machinations of the Democrat Party and its clown cronies like Chris Wallace.

    President Trump is the raging bull in the Democrat Party china shop.

    • We should not claim the Democrat party has an exclusive hold on corruption. Many clowns from the GOP also have crony deals feathering the beds of their friends and families. Moreover the Bush and Romney famlies owe their allegiances to the same group of Big Money financiers as Clinton and Obama. Prior to President Trump they gave us a mere illusion of choice in our elections.

  • As usual an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson. Unfortunately I am now turned off by American greatness.

    I don’t know who the fool was; I don’t know who was stupid enough to change the commenting engine away from Disqus but, they should be fired.

    Apparently, that fool doesn’t realize, that part of the pleasure of coming to a site like this is being able to actually interact with other readers and share our opinions and visa versa.

    Well, this is the first time I’ve come to American greatness in over a week, since they changed to this onerous commenting engine.

    I wrote a direct email to Chris Bursick commenting on this, but apparently it has fallen on completely deaf ears.

    I suggest, if you agree with me that you write Chris Bursick at


    and let him know if you agee and feel the way Ido, until then Au revoir my friends, I miss you.

    • Completely agree. Several writers here have let the mask slip in recent weeks, sharpening their knives aimed at Trump’s back. VDH’s article is all that brought me back here after a week of staying away. In the future I’ll attempt to get his content elsewhere.

    • Google’s AD monopoly is to blame. They are shutting down all conservative comment sites under ‘moderatuon/censorship’ to disable conservative resistance. They did it to Federalist and zerohedge, now amgreatness, the last hold out is breitbart.

    • I emailed American Greatness as well and have heard nothing. They ruined a great site.

    • Ditto.
      And yes, I’d encourage everyone to respond as SGuru indicates. The new format feels like wading through mud.

  • Another excellent article by VDH. We can’t hammer on the truth enough about the media. Their hypocrisy is more visible every day. They choose not to hide it anymore. I remember noticing the changes during the Obama 8 year reign; the media lies by omitting the truth, but during Obama’s presidency we saw them begin to edit tapes and actively work to reshape the media. I believe it’s always been this way, things just move too fast for them to hide it anymore.

    Imagine how different our nation would be if the media were to truly do their job. To be unbiased and report the truth. We most likely would have exposed the coup on Trump four years ago. Trump’s first term was held back by the media telling the world, our president was compromised by Putin, three years of leaks and fake reporting, an impeachment proceeding based on lies and 24/7 negative media coverage.

    The damage of the Clintons and Obamas is living large in our lives. But fortunately for America, we have Trump on our side.

  • Perhaps the most depressing part of this is knowing that Wallace was ostensibly the “conservative” debate moderator, by comparison to the next two. Once again–as it has for decades–the GOP rolls over for the Commission on Presidential Debates.

  • Chris Wallace accurately described Trump’s Charlottesville comment. Trump said that there were “fine people” marching with the White Supremacists and Nazis. Asking him about that was not the same thing as what Crowley did at all.

    • That is damned lie. There were no Klansmen or “nazis” marching at that event. Those were leftist false flag operations designed for media consumption. Virtually EVERY Southerner admires R. E. Lee and is appalled at the idea yanking down his monuments. The people at that event were overwhelmingly ordinary people who are daily offended by the kind of attacks that are now being directed at the Historic American Nation. Those leftist fanatics who attacked the protesters in Charlottesville went on to topple statues of Washington and Lincoln. That’s who they really are.

    • You need to go back and rewatch that entire press conference. He said, more than once, that he denounces the White Nationalists and neo-nazis. He even explicitly said he wasn’t referring to them when he said there were “fine people on both sides”. Wallace’s question about it was predicated on a lie. Aside from that, he asked the same thing at the debate in 2016, and Trump explicitly denounced White Nationalists then. What Wallace and Roberts are doing is dishonest. They both know he has denounced racism, white nationalism, and all forms of violent radicalism repeatedly. They harangue him on this relentlessly and then ignore his answer.

      • The Charlottesville comment came AFTER 2016, so it is perfectly appropriate to ask the question again. Yes, Trump explicitly said that he wasn’t referring to white supremacists and then he said there were fine people marching with them, so he kind of contracted himself. There were no fine people marching with the Nazis because fine people don’t do that.

    • This is what Wallace said to Biden:
      “You have said that President Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville three years ago, when he talked about ‘very fine people’ on both sides, was what directly led you to launch this run for president.”
      This is what Trump said after Charlottesville:
      “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name…I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
      How does that equal a failure to condemn white supremacists? Trump explicitly condemns them. Biden lied in the statement opening his campaign, and Wallace abetted that lie during the debate.

      • “excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did”

        What is that supposed to mean? That Trump can tell why people were marching just by looking at pictures?

      • What lie? What truth? Which statement?

        Honestly, I can’t tell to whom you are responding or what point you’re making. Are you saying VDH is a liar? What is he lying about? What is the truth you can match against his lie?

        Or are you responding to Jane? (Admittedly hard to tell given this new format)

  • Crowley did us all a favor by helping to prevent Romney from reaching the White House. He would have been a complete disaster, just as his senatorial career has been. Utah needs to recall this snake.

  • In accounting-speak, the number of COVID-19 infections is a top-line number; the number of deaths is the bottom line.

    As testing increases and the virus spreads, positive test results increase; however, the percentage of hospitalizations continues to decrease as those infected are increasingly younger and healthier. The percentage of those hospitalized who die remains stubbornly high, but we should all be optimistic for improvements in therapeutics and medical protocols.

    Also, too, remember ~210k deaths remains far fewer than the ~2M predicted by the earlier models.

    • Yes! Couldn’t agree more.

      Two caveats…

      1) Vast and critical differences between and among our ongoing estimates of total people who have been infected with Wuhan V (revealed only through anti-body testing)…..people who currently test positive for the disease….people who test positive AND are actually symptomatic….. people who are sick enough to require medical intervention…. and people who actually die FROM the virus (as opposed to dying WITH the virus).

      The CDC estimates a 10X multiplier effect (known cases to total infected). This means the U.S. MIGHT contain as many as 75M WuhanV ‘victims’. They also estimate that only 6% of the dead truly die FROM WuhanV….the balance of the deaths occur in those who AVERAGE 2.4 comorbidities each. That fact, of course, leads to significant confusion when it comes to official ’cause of death’ (especially when federal funding is tied to WuhanV deaths): a 94 yr. old man….who is hypertensive….suffering from COPD….has a hard time breathing and goes to the hospital. He tests positive for the virus and dies two days later. What killed him? Who knows?

      2) You note the 210K deaths, a tragic figure. But it is important to equally note that in that same 7 month period — in a normal, unremarkable year — we’d expect about 1.8M Americans to die anyway. 8000 of us every single day, on average. This is a ‘death harvest’ which goes completely unnoticed, save by the 8000 families afflicted by those 8000 tragedies. Now we say — in 8 months — 12% of our normal total was pushed/caused by WuhanV. Was that 12% incremental (on top of the 1.8M)? Or was it included? (and if included, how much included)? We simply don’t know the answers to these questions. The CDC calculates an “excess death” total …..but even they are guessing. Two years from now, will we see a 12% increase sitting atop the 1.8M….or will we see a 3-4 month peak balanced by a valley 6-12 months from now? Your guess as good as my own.

      If you’re not familiar, I’d strongly recommend William Briggs insight into the Virus Counts. You can find them here:

  • Just remember, Pravda and Izvestia couldn’t keep the Soviet Union from collapsing. Eastern Europe threw off communism despite having a communist-controlled press. For the most part, the American media has lost their ability to influence–those who believe will continue to believe; those who don’t will not be swayed.

  • Assumptions

    Every proposition is based upon a set of assumptions. The argument against White Supremacy is that Whites are not superior. Really?

    What is meant by superior? Superior to whom?

    By definition, Euro-Caucasians have an average IQ of 100. Northeastern Asians such as Chinese and Japanese, 105. Jews, especially Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, 110. African Negroes, 80 with Pygmies at 55.

    Almost all advances in science and technology have been by Euro-Caucasians, especially Nordics . White Supremacy? Maybe there’s a case for it.

    • Sometime ago a black rapper or entertainer of some sort claimed on some sort of media that whites were
      “inferior” to blacks. This outburst became viral and I naively decided to respond on Breitbart. I wrote that a comparison of the achievements between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans should be made in order to test the declarant’s statement. My post was vetted and never appeared as a comment on the article. It appears that political correctness is ubiquitous. No doubt FNC now suffers from the same disease, Liberalism.

  • Wallace has always been biased, as any long time FNC viewer knows. Why FNC chose him in the first place is simply a mystery… it’s FNC’s managements fault, they should have known better. Roberts is simply a baby.

  • When the Murdoch kid took over at Fox News things changed. Ailes was railroaded out and the tenor of FNC changed. It was about that time that the change in Wallace, in particular, became apparent. Anyone associated with Trump or the GOP became a target. I stopped watching Fox two years ago, Wallace’s during the debate exemplifies exactly why.

  • Amazingly, Hanson twists himself in knots making false comparisons, lying, and delivering a one-sided homer for Trump. Shameful for one who claims to ba an academic.

    • What false comparisons? What are the lies you believe you’ve identified?
      It’s impossible to respond to blind assertions without making equally blind assertions, getting us exactly nowhere.

      As for “claiming to be an academic”…he IS an academic. “He is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College.” Certainly that makes him an academic.

      You are free, of course, to complain about his academic bona fides, if you wish….but you are mistaken if you believe that the mere fact of being in Academia somehow elevates one to the status of God or makes of their political commentary an eternal truth graved in stone. What he offers here is commentary, no more, no less.

      But until or unless you offer your own annotated commentary, our only possible response becomes the equally banal: no he doesn’t; no he isn’t; no it isn’t.

      Kinda pointless, don’t you think?

  • There’s nothing wrong with Wallace that getting his ass kicked couldn’t fix. He’s a no-talent drip who owes his career to nepotism. He’s the Hunter Biden of journalists

    • Trump gave a terrible tone deaf debate performance and you chose to shoot the messenger. Typical.

  • And, then, of course, there’s the little matter of masks being used to prevent infecting other people- not protecting yourself from the virus. So even if Trump had worn the talismask (talisman + mask = talimask) religiously, according to the common wisdom, it wouldn’t have prevented him from getting infected.

  • Professor Hanson – Please create a full explanation as to the damage to our country that will result from the Dems winning this next election. For example: reentry to JCPOA and results therefrom; China relationship will allow China to become even more dominate, stay in WTO, corrupt the WHO, bribe politicians journalist and academics worldwide; Biden will wreck our economy which will lead to more and more government power in order to “fix” things. A weak economy will diminish military strength; it will lead to increasing poverty, inflation, crime, and further strain on families. The Dems will pack the Supreme Court, make DC and PR states, eliminate the Electoral College, and there will be one party rule making it impossible to reverse course through election process. There is not much time – please educate our people.

  • The Fake News Mockingbird Media Psyop only tells us what they want us to hear and distort or leave out any context that challenges their narratives. We, the people, are merely tools to manipulate to achieve their goals. Turn it off, tune it out, defund it, and seek truth from trusted sources like VDH.

  • So called debates are for the most part a waste of everyone’s time. Either they are entertaining or they are enraging but in any case they’re not the sober policy discussions we imagine. They’re not. They’re long-form political ads. Often the candidates quote their own commercials.

  • I know, I repeat myself. – “Victor Hanson Hits the target again. He is a Master at what he does. Zeroed in and another bullseye. Thank you. And Thank You, President Donald J. Trump, for who you are and what you do.

  • I wish voters would focus on the policies advocated by each candidate and not focus on personalities. If Trump wins re-election and Republicans do not win the House, he will be gone in four years. If the Democrats win House, Senate, and presidency, their radical far-left policies will be with us forever. Borders will be open, police will be defunded, Supreme Court will be packed, election fraud will be systemic, military will be weakened, government-run health care will be phased in, public schools will continue their indoctrination, free speech will become hate speech, 2nd amendment will be eroded, charter schools will be outlawed, Christians will be deemed far-right extremists, jobs and promotions will be awarded based on race rather than performance, all statues of historical figures will be demolished, riots will be tolerated, and there will never be another conservative, America-loving administration. The end result will be a move toward government dependency and a country ripe for takeover by China or Russia. Don’t think it can’t happen; it has happened many times in history. Think about the future of the USA, not whether you like Trump or Obama.

  • Why you all are so surprised with Wallace behavior. Go back to third 2016 debates and watch them again. He did not change, slimy one. I was not surprised at all. It is time for him to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *