On Sunday morning, former President Donald Trump posted an attack on pop star Taylor Swift, signaling that his campaign had begun to unravel.
It was not a surprise that Trump might resent Swift for her endorsement of his rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, but there was absolutely nothing to be gained by saying so publicly.
In doing so, Trump was drawing attention to an endorsement that had made little impact, and possibly alienating some of his supporters.
He was also signaling that he had lost control of himself, and the campaign. This was the Trump of 2020, the undisciplined incumbent who, under attack from all sides, would lash out at rivals and the press, even when he was winning.
We had not seen this version of Trump in years. The "lawfare" against him seemed to have focused his mind even as it also consolidated his Republican support. The 2024 campaign was professional, disciplined, and efficient.
True, the campaign was slow to react to the replacement of President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket with Vice President Harris. But staffing changes in August seemed to work: Trump tightened his message and stuck to policy.
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Trump's running mate, also became an important asset to the campaign, sharpening his skills as he sparred with the media on Sunday morning news shows (which his rival, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has avoided).
Then came the debate. According to my sources, Trump had appeared in fine form during practice sessions with former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). But onstage, he was immediately combative, defensive, and ultimately ineffective.
True, he had the moderators against him. But it was not the moderators' fault that he failed to seize on an early Harris mistake, when she dodged a question about whether Americans were better off today than they were 4 years ago.
Give credit to the Harris campaign for preparing a set of talking points designed to get under his skin, including insulting him over his rallies (which she claimed, falsely, are boring). He could have ignored her; instead, he took the bait.
It was not a disaster; he did not insult Kamala Harris personally, or make too many major gaffes. But he failed to use the opportunity to communicate his own message. And Democrats left feeling a boost of confidence in Harris.
The full picture of what happened has begun to emerge. Trump traveled to the debate with Laura Loomer, a provocateur who associates with marginal figures and ideas on the right and somehow insinuated herself into Trump's inner circle.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a rhetorical bomb-thrower who also likes to provoke opponents (including Republicans), also somehow made it into Mar-a-Lago as Trump was preparing for the crucial debate, and later posted on X about it.
https://x.com/mattgaetz/status/1833596637194948708?s=46&t=l2JVNfY-lbp_LzUHpXhZEA
These voices often flatter Trump and amplify his most incendiary instincts. At a time when he needed to project a calm, presidential demeanor, he was surrounded by at least some people who would have supported the opposite.
Later, after the media declared that Harris had won, it is possible that these were the sources of comfort to which he turned -- the voices that savor battles against the odds. Hence Trump's unhelpful frame of mind on Sunday morning.
The Taylor Swift debacle was quickly forgotten amid news of the attempted assassination. While the shocking event -- the second in just over two months -- was deeply disturbing, it may also have saved the Trump campaign.
The assassination attempt placed Trump once again at the center of public empathy. It also brought out the worst in his media and Democratic opponents, who blamed the intended victim, saying his rhetoric -- not theirs -- was at fault.
That was a reminder of the stakes in November: the same voices that would stoke violence while censoring their political rivals would be fully in charge in a Harris administration. The Democrats were scarier than an unstable Trump.
On Monday, as he returned to campaigning, Trump exuded calm, and issued messages of unity. It was Trump back at his best -- urging supporters to fight, but to fight for all Americans. He appeared to have been shaken out of his funk.
The question is whether Trump will use the opportunity that fate -- or God -- has given him. He needs to get rid of the grifters and groupies and focus on a positive message. It is not enough to point to Harris's weaknesses; he must lead.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
