With apologies to the late Jimmy Buffet, millions of Americans are wasting away in Mediaville this summer following the fast-moving presidential campaign.

 

My belief is that many viewers and readers know they are being deceived but watch and read slanted stuff anyway.  This puts them in a position of being semi-comatose chowderheads applauding like over-fed seals every time they hear what they want to hear.

 

I hope I'm not being too harsh.

 

The two candidates are now even in the polls so it is my obligation to report the absolute truth about both of them because the incredibly high stakes demand it.

 

Next week, we will analyze Ms. Kamala, but here we laser focus on Donald Trump, the most controversial president of all time. Sorry, Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon.

 

Your personal assessment of President Trump is most likely correct, at least in part, no matter what it is.  That's because the man has many facets.

 

Everyone can see the flaws.  No need to type up a list.  But some of his brash words and deeds have worked for him. No other person in history has achieved the presidency fighting the entrenched system with no political experience. Repeat: no one has ever done that.

 

Michael Bloomberg is as wealthy as Trump, ran New York City well as mayor, and got absolutely waxed when he campaigned for the White House.

 

Why?  Because he was rather boring and was way too independent for the Democratic machine.

 

In 2016, Trump destroyed the Republican machine by being outrageous and entertaining.  Who would you rather have dinner with - Trump or Bloomberg?

 

Your humble correspondent has dined with both.  Learned a lot from each. The meals went quicker with Trump.

 

So his bombastic style has benefited the Don and he's not going to change.  Some thought he would after a bullet almost killed him.  But like Teddy Roosevelt, he's returned badder than ever.  That, of course, has a double edge.

 

Last week's confrontation at the Black Journalist forum proves my assertions. Trump generously accepted an invitation from the group because he believes he has a solid message for African Americans: his economic policies helped create prosperity for them.

 

That's true.

 

Kamala Harris declined the group's invite because the dialogue was unscripted. Like President Biden, Ms. Harris fears that.  In fact, the only tough interview the Vice President has done in 42 months was with Lester Holt, who had to tell Kamala she did not go to the border when she insisted she had.

 

Not missing a beat, Kamala Harris then said she didn't go to Europe either. 

 

Oh.

 

Anyway, Donald Trump was apparently surprised when Black journalist and ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott pounded him with her first question.

 

"A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today ... you have told four congresswomen of color who were American citizens to go back where they came from.  You have used words like 'animal' and 'rabbit' to describe Black attorneys.  You've attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser..."

 

Phew.  Ms. Scott wasn't really asking a question; she was accusing President Trump of being a racist.

 

Taking the bait, Trump scolded Rachel Scott which is what he always does when attacked.  And Scott's monologue was certainly a vicious exposition.

 

Put aside the fact that Donald Trump is an equal opportunity insulter, why would a journalist seeking information not be specific in defining what she sees as a serious problem? That's not hard.  You put names and dates and context in your query.  Let the audience clearly understand the issue.

 

But Ms. Scott was not seeking information.  She wanted to play to the hate-Trump crew.  High fives all around.

 

The situation was almost exactly the same as the Megyn Kelly debate question in 2016.  Back then, it was Trump denigrating women.  Rachel Scott simply plugged in her group.

 

Like 2016, Trump immediately understood the attack and lashed back at the 32-year-old ABC correspondent.  He is not a man of restraint, and his base doesn't want him to be.

 

From there, the "interview" devolved into what ethnic group Kamala Harris identifies with.  My question: who cares?  Trump tried to make the point that Harris uses ethnicity to advance herself, that she's an opportunist.  But what came across was racial spite.  Skin color should never be an issue.

 

It is clear Donald Trump needs a savvy media advisor to prepare him when facing contentious situations.  Personal animosity will lose the former president's votes no matter how deserving the target is.  One more thing: the "hate Trump" press has nothing to lose by being unfair. It is now expected and rewarded.

 

Lost in all the fog is compelling evidence that Donald Trump's governance was better than Biden/Harris by a wide margin. All the polls indicate voters know that.

 

So, the truth is that Trump is pretty much running against himself.  Skin color, ethnicity, insults, and derision are all distractions from the reality that Harris is a deeply committed far-left progressive while Trump is a successful deal maker, a libertarian capitalist whose vision helped build economic prosperity for Americans of all colors.