"Who's Afraid of Verbal Wounds?" And, living with blinders.

From the department of common knowledge: Trump is terrified of debating Kamala Harris.

Her brain isn't Trumpian mush, she does her homework, knows her stuff, she has come into her own and she's aggressive in verbal sparring, as most former prosecutors are. I'd be afraid of taking her on, and my brain hasn't yet reached Donald's stage of otherworldliness and serious deterioration. (Full disclosure: Then again, I haven't "aced" two cognitive tests for dementia as he has.)  

The Daily Beast has recapped some the above-referenced common knowledge. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on MSNBC, "The felon is afraid of the prosecutor—and for damn good reason." On CNN, former Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin said, "There are things he’s going to have to answer for in this debate… and I think he’s afraid of that." And on Bill Maher, CNN's Kaitlin Collins said, "I think Trump is really nervous about [the debate]…. I talk to a lot of sources in his world." 

With such knowledge widely recorded and laying heaped on the table, naturally Republicans have taken to turning it around. No no, it's not Trump who's nervous. It's Kamala. From the Beast, an exemplary source: "Fox News’ Sean Hannity said, '[Harris] is evidently afraid to debate Trump,' then cited the fact that she rebuffed Trump’s suggestion of a debate on his network, stating it would be 'too risky' and she’s 'too incompetent,' to visit the land of Fair and Balanced." 

The Beast then notes that "the conservative Washington Examiner published the headline, 'Kamala Harris is scared of debating Trump, as she should be.'" Such headlines and the copy below them, which most Trumpers dismiss — reading is so bothersome, are designed to prop up the flagging spirits of the heretofore assured and triumph-convinced. When the chips look as though they may be headed southward, the right-wing propagandists lunge into feel-good, everything's OK psychological uplift and mind-pampering. 

Hannity, the Examiner and lord only knows how many other righty-tighty outlets of sheer humbug rang my short-term memory bell — about yesterday's post, titled "You find comfort where you can get it." Whether in politics or war, some people insist on hearing, sometimes reading, only the rosiest of forecasts. But blinkered eyes and closed ears are the front lines of sure defeat. Any competent commander in war would demand intel on every aspect of the enemy's strengths before a campaign, as would most politicians — and as their followers should.    

That too has been common knowledge, at least in war, since Sun Tzu, dead for more than 2,500 years. Yet in politics? Today? I could not be happier that Trump's followers prefer to live with blinders, and that they get their vision supplies from the proto-fascist media. Unfortunately, too numerous are Democratic outlets that also convey only cheerleading news, which is just as wrong, and just as dangerous.

Harris, or her housekeeper — both are incalculably more fit for the White House than Trump. Yet Kamala is in a brawling street fight with a gangster who possesses no reasonable right to any polling stat above 1% (estimate based slightly below U.S. prison and jail population), which even the blind should be able to see. I can think of no better way to hobble Kamala Harris than for her supporters to dismiss the enemy's strengths, as unfathomable as they are. Perhaps unwittingly, some Democratic sites contribute to such counterproductive notions.  

On the upside, Dem voters aren't as inclined as Trumpers to be overconfident, because — they're Democrats. Their hopes have been waylaid too many times to be Pollyanish about elections. The year 2016 was particularly educational. But in a razor-thin contest, even the slenderest of excessive optimism — blindness — can be a killer. Those of that ilk are inclined to stay home on Election Day.       

Comments

[Anne J]

It's a good thing the Harris/Walz ticket call themselves the underdogs. Never underestimate Trump or what voters will do on election day.