She pressed every one of his oh-so-sensitive buttons

I said I would write about Tuesday’s debate between Harris and the nasty guy only if I read something interesting about it. And I did. First some tidbits from the debate. Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos posted the segment in which Harris talks about how much the nasty guy admires dictators. They can manipulate him with flattery. So military leaders say he’s a disgrace. We need a president good at national security and understands respecting the military. Einenkel posted about the nasty guy willing to let Putin take over Ukraine with his eyes on Poland. Harris said:

And why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor, and what you think is a friendship, with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch?

Kos of Kos gave his (definitely progressive) opinion on how the debate went.

Vice President Kamala Harris began the debate Tuesday night with a power move—walking right up to a befuddled Donald Trump and shaking his hand. It signaled who was the boss, and she took command of the debate from the start. For 90 minutes, Trump was forced to respond to Harris’ attacks while she ignored his. In question after question, Harris took hard, focused, and effective swipes at an increasingly agitated Trump. Increasingly rattled, Trump’s voice sped up, louder and louder until he was yelling into his microphone, sounding hysterical, repeating lies like “after birth abortions”—provoking a rare fact-check from the moderators. In fact, more than one.

Harris came out ahead even after the ABC moderators fudged on the time and allowed the nasty guy speak for an extra nine minutes. All that did was allow him to hang himself with his rambles. Kos also discussed that afterward the nasty guy reveled in polls showing he won. These are polls from far right organizations that have zero scientific validity, which progressives will ignore. Kos discussed the nasty guy’s obvious lack of debate prep. He didn’t take it seriously, because “he has benefitted from a lifetime of success without having to really work for any of it.” And “The world has consistently rewarded his laziness and lack of preparation.” Mark Sumner of Kos wrote that the nasty guy had memorable lines (see below), but there was another part of what he said that is more important. During the debate he was asked about his desire to repeal and replace Obamacare. He admitted he has no plan and never did. What he has are “concepts of a plan.” This is important because back when running for president in 2015 the nasty guy made repeal and replace the core of his campaign. He wanted repeal because he hated Obama, who got the thing passed. Republicans also wanted repeal (thanks to Sen. John McCain for thwarting them). But he only and perpetually promised the replace part. Which meant he was and still is, “willing to rip away the health care of 50 million Americans with no replacement to offer—a level of vindictive recklessness that's hard to imagine.” Sumner discussed the shift in mood among progressives after the debate. As part of that he explained:

In Tuesday night’s debate, Harris might as well have been holding a technical diagram showing the precise location of every one of Trump’s oh-so-sensitive buttons. And she pressed them all. Gleefully. Or, as The New Yorker put it, “Kamala Harris, veteran prosecutor, proved beyond a reasonable doubt on Tuesday night that her opponent will always take the bait.” ... How Harris was baiting Trump into one unforced error after another became obvious early on. No matter what the topic, Harris made sure to insert one shiny little nugget certain to ramp up Trump’s ire: Crowd sizes. People leaving his rallies because his speeches were boring. His felony convictions. And every single time, Trump jumped on the bait, losing his chance to respond to Harris’ policy statements, and becoming angrier and angrier as he realized that his golden opportunity was slipping away.

The lines that got repeated the most by the media were the ones about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio eating pets. For the record it is disgusting, false, and easily debunked. Springfield is “ecstatic” immigrants are coming to their town that was shrinking. They’re filling jobs and living in houses that had been empty. Sumner reported that lie came from JD Vance. The nasty guy was just repeating it. So after the debate Vance was asked about it. And he didn’t back down. Which means this is now Republican dogma.

The embrace of this overtly, deliberately racist, and utterly disgusting claim is the ultimate outcome of where Republicans have been going for years. Decades, even. It’s a mishmash of Trump’s xenophobic racism against Mexicans, the white supremacy at the heart of the Republican Party, and the vilest Nazi-inspired blood libel. Now they own it. And have to defend it. No dogs may actually have been harmed in Springfield, but Republicans have definitely thrown away their dog whistles. And taken off their sheets.

The nasty guy’s claim, of course, spawned dozens of memes and cartoons. Several were collected in the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos. “Out of an abundance of caution, the national touring company of CATS has canceled upcoming Springfield dates.” An image of Harris looking at the nasty guy has the caption, “The face you make when you realize it’s time to take away grandpa’s car keys.” The Wieners Circle restaurant in Chicago has been putting snarky messages on its sign. The current one says, “Immigrants eat our dogs.” A cartoon by Matt Davies shows Vance and the nasty guy behind a cauldron of something green and bubbling. The nasty guy offers Uncle Sam a ladle, asking, “Haitian dog-whistle stew?” A yellow flag showing a kitten and the words, “Don’t snack on me.”