Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

OK, OK . . . the Demo Debate

As foretold by one and all, the Las Vegas debate was a snooze-fest. Not much in the way of attacks on Hillary by the boys; it was as if they had all resigned themselves to her winning the nomination.

Brooklyn Bernie Sanders, I must confess, showed some passion when he railed against the millionaires and billionaires. This speech must have sounded fresh and exciting when those talking points first arrived from Moscow at the Communist Party USA HQs in 1932.

Sanders showed his total lack of grasp of the law and national security by giving Hillary a pass-cum-endorsement on the email issue. Bernie, surprisingly, seemed the most moderate on gun control, obviously taking to heart the views of his rural voters in Vermont, but even he repeated the fallacy about closing the non-existent "gun show loophole," and some mumbo-jumbo about guns and mental health. He proved, once again, completely illiterate on economic issues and promised "lots of stuff."

Governor Martin O'Malley? He had a hard time getting past his tiresome attacks on the NRA (America's oldest civil rights organization) and seemed to blame the NRA for all the problems in his old stomping ground of Baltimore (more on this below). He recited the tired line about Bush leading us into war in Iraq with bogus intelligence . . . yawn.

Lincoln Chafee? Gee, I didn't even know he was still around. The former Republican, former Independent, former mayor, former senator, and former governor did not deliver--as the media had speculated he would--major attacks on the front runners and seemed eager only to redo the 2004 election by harping on the invasion of Iraq. He seems gleefully stuck in the recent past.

Former Senator, former Secretary of the Navy, and USMC combat veteran Jim Webb, frankly, seemed the only decent fellow on the stage. I met him many years ago and he struck me then as an honorable and patriotic man, in other words as somebody who does not belong in today's Democratic party. Webb was the only one who seemed to have a grasp of foreign policy and of the need for a US presence in the world. He also was the only one to mention protecting our borders. He did not get to say much, and on stage looked very much like a startled friend of mine did some thirty years ago when we accidentally wandered into a gay bar in Washington DC: his face broadcast the plaintive plea, "How do I get out of here?"

All were weak on immigration to say the least and even Webb signed off on granting illegals access to free medical care. All fumbled around with the "Black Lives Matter" meme and just could not declare it the nonsense that it is. O' Malley was notably hideous on the issue by talking about how over 300 young black men were killed in Baltimore every year that he was mayor and how different public reaction would have been if the dead had been white. Yes, Mr. Mayor, that's the point. They were not white. O'Malley, of course, skipped the unpleasant and Progressive-narrative-destroying fact that these dead did not result either from police actions or those of evil NRA-backed, gun-totting white Southerners. Almost to a man they were killed by other young black men. As I have noted many times (here, here, and here for example) murder in America, including by firearms, is largely a phenomenon within Democratic constituencies.

Economic policies? A disaster. Sanders openly declared himself a socialist who favored entrepreneurs--apparently unless they become successful, note to Bernie, there would have been no Wynn casino or Las Vegas if we had followed your policies. They all--Webb, I don't know--seemed to support much higher taxes and spending as the way to fix the mess made by high taxes and spending. Clinton, talked about giving everybody the opportunities she had had--I guess to be a bribe launderer in Arkansas, run a crooked "foundation," etc.?

Who won?

My answer to that tiresome question is . . . Hillary Clinton. I say that because her mastery at lying and gliding over inconvenient facts could win over the low-information voters who form the Democratic core constituency. She, for example, flat out lied when she said her private email server use was allowed by the State Department, but did it quite well.  I suspect, however, many pundits will declare Sanders the winner because of his "passion" and his "telling truth to power" style of rabble rousing. I refer them to CPUSA circa 1932 (see above).

I find it hard to believe that any sentient, working being, with a moderate level of information at his or her disposal and with any degree of love for our country could possibly support these candidates (pace Webb) who range from lame to outright lunatic and dangerous. Frankly put, you have to be an idiot or a "free stuff addict" to support these people.  Just wondering . . .

29 comments:

  1. G'day Dip,

    I watched a run of the debate [?] for curiosity as try as I might your electoral system is still a mystery to someone brought up on the Westminster System.

    That I was underwhelmed by the participants would be an extreme understatement and I wouldn't trust any of them with running a chook raffle in a pub. G-d help the USofA if any of them ever become President. Donald T must look at them and smile.

    In dealing with Shrillary I would have thought that one word would be sufficient. "Benghazi".

    Purely unrelated to this subject but one of my uncles was an infantryman in the 2nd AIDF 6th Division that took Benghazi from the Italians in February 1941.

    I hope that the people of your nation make a considered choice when it comes to your next President as the current one is a sick joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should be AIF not AIDF. Damn fingers

      Delete
    2. No foreigner, especially one friendly to the USA, should have watched that debate. It will not make you love us more . . .

      Delete
    3. I think The Dear Golfer is still loved in much of Europe?

      Delete
    4. I know a man who outright told me that he voted for Obama in '08, because he thought it would make us friends overseas.

      In Oct. '08 I more or less anticipated that an Obama victory would bring problems on the order of what he has, so far. I've been waiting for 2X Jan. '17 ever since.

      The desire for international friendship was mistaken in the first place.

      The United States was founded to tell the rest of world to go root a roo, metaphorically speaking. There can be no friendship between the United States and any power with an opinion on how the United States conducts its internal business.

      Friendship is probably a poor analogy for international relations.

      I'm tempted to impeach my statement by joking about how we instead should use the methods of the pick up artist community.

      Anti-Democrat

      Delete
  2. Mr. Mad,
    I think I'd label it more, Hillary didn't lose, than Hillary won.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've said it before--the MSM have anointed the Harridan and they will do all they can to ensure she is the nominee and the President. The GOP better get it's act together, or we are in big trouble.

      The media, naturally, will not ask her hard questions or call BS on her bold-faced lies.

      We are in very serious trouble, I fear, and barring some extraordinary development we better get ready for President Empty Pantsuit.

      Delete
    2. " We are in very serious trouble, I fear, and barring some extraordinary development we better get ready for President Empty Pantsuit."

      The most recent Qunnipiac polls show her trailing Carson and within the margin of error regarding Trump, Fiorina, and Bush (leading Trump and trailing the others). The recent Fox polls show her trailing all four and only within the margin or error re Fiorina. Polls are not very reliable anymore and it's early. Still, what's the point of the social hypochondria?

      Delete
  3. What puzzles me is to what audience or audiences these candidates were trying to appeal. The Old Communists of America group? The young "give me more free stuff group? The "America is a hateful country built on the backs of poor oppressed People of Color and doesn't deserve any stature as a nation" group? Or, the identity sectionality victim qua entitled group? Or, of course, all of them. Did not appear that any were concerned with groups concerned with upward mobility based on hard work, or with the welfare of our allies and friends abroad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Young, ill informed idiots. They love his shtick. Lots of the 20 somethings where I work thing he's just grand.

      Delete
    2. "The young "give me more free stuff group? The "America is a hateful country built on the backs of poor oppressed People of Color and doesn't deserve any stature as a nation" group? Or, the identity sectionality victim qua entitled group?"

      This is now a majority coalition in the USA.

      Mark in Portland

      Delete
  4. After last night...http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425531/debate-lesson-america-now-has-openly-socialist-party-jim-geraghty

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched the entire debate and was shocked at how obvious it was that the other candidates had no intention from the beginning of going after Hillary. It was Hillary and four duds, vying for a place in her cabinet. What a sham. Do people not see through this?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I loved when they asked who was a Capitalist and they all squirmed like pigs in a bacon factory.
    Never considering it is the success of Capitalism that provides the wealth for them to steal and buy votes with (i'm sorry...redistribute).
    Not so much "who won," but "who lost."
    IMHO; the Democrat Party. Is this what they have devolved into?
    And by default...the US.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just finished reading Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. It really tied a lot of things I'd picked up piecemeal together. He really had the Democratic party's number, at least the one that was on display last night.

    Key sentence "They want to make us believe that untotalitarian totalitarianism, a kind of a triangular square, is the patent medicine for all ills."


    "There exists today a sham anticommunist front. What these people who call themselves “anticommunist liberals” and whom sober men more correctly call “anti-anticommunists” are aiming at is communism without those inherent and necessary features of communism which are still unpala-table to Americans. They make an illusory distinction between communism and socialism and-paradoxically enough—look for a support of their recommendation of noncommunist socialism to the document which its authors called The Communist Manifesto. They think that they have proved their case by employing such aliases for socialism as planning or the welfare state. They pretend to reject the revolutionary and dictatorial aspirations of the “Reds” and at the same time they praise in books and magazines, in schools and universities, Karl Marx, the champion of the communist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, as one of the greatest economists, philosophers and sociologists and as the eminent benefactor and liberator of mankind. They want to make us believe that untotalitarian totalitarianism, a kind of a triangular square, is the patent medicine for all ills. Whenever they raise some mild objection to communism, they are eager to abuse capitalism in terms borrowed from the objurgatory vocabulary of Marx and Lenin. They emphasize that they abhor capitalism much more passionately than communism, and they justify all the unsavory acts of the communists by referring to the “unspeakable horrors’ of capitalism. In short: they pretend to fight communism in trying to convert people to the ideas of the Communist Manifesto.

    "What these self-styled “anticommunist liberals” are fighting against is not communism as such, but a communist system in which they themselves are not at the helm. What they are aiming at is a socialist, i.e., communist, system in which they themselves or their most intimate friends hold the reins of government."

    Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-23). The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well Mr Mad, we all owe you one for watching that cr@p so that we don't have to!

    It certainly will be depressing if Billary gets the nomination and a total disaster if she should by some sort of default win the presidency. It really will be time to stock up on ammo and tinned food...

    But I am puzzled by your contuning to give a free pass to the idiot Bush on Iraq. It has long been proved to my satisfaction that the loathsome Blair took Britain in on false prospectus, and I do not accept that Bush was any less economical with the truth.

    To a 19th century liberal such as me, not to be confused with 20th or 21st century liberals who are a very different colour, Bush was almost as disastrous a president as Obama has been (admittedly his mistakes were less self inflicted than O'Bama's) and both the Iraq war and the general increase in federal spending were grievous errors.

    Of course the other important difference is that Bush did not set out with the aim of destroying the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It has long been proved to my satisfaction"

      Perhaps there's a problem with your satisfaction.


      "the idiot Bush on Iraq."

      The judgment 'idiot' is characteristic of people who do not know the man, or anything about him other than internet memes.


      Delete
  9. Well, having two immigrant grandfathers, an immigrant wife, and an immigrant daughter-in-law, I feel personally insulted that Shrillary Shroooooo has joined the crowd of loose lips who make "immigrant" synonymous with "illegal". I was driving home and heard WTOP (OK, I've given away my general location) guilty of similar misusage.

    As for Brooklyn Boinie (that was Grossvater's first pied-a-terre in the Noo Woild, so I'm allowed), I can't stand anyone who (1) sounds like a 1930's Commie and (2) sees a child eight months in the womb as a choice while different brands of oral hygiene products shouldn't be.

    Dip, thanks for the lowdown on Webb. My general impression of the whole party of Jefferson is that it has become decidedly scruffy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't comprehend Webb as an individual, as the oft-cited background information didn't lead to what I would expect of his political opinions. I finally looked him up: five children by three women.
      I'm not going to say whether this is good, bad or some other descriptor. What I'm saying is that his politics could easily have developed to fit his personal choices.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. You may well be right, 1482.

      Delete
  10. Mr. Mad,
    Your last paragraph accurately depicts our voting populace.
    The question isn't "how the heck did this happen?" The question is "how the heck do we fix this?"
    I read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Influencer-Science-Leading-Change-Edition/dp/0071808868
    which accurately describes the rise of abortion-on-demand, gay-marriage, and a whole slew of other lefty causes that have been foisted upon a deliberately mis-informed public. While the text is written from a noble standpoint, it depicts a set of tools which can be used both for good or ill. I can't say this is groundbreaking in any way, it's rather just a nice write-up of what everybody knows you do if you want to influence people and despite the title, there's *nothing* remotely scientific about it. (I'd say this book and its title are almost designed to influence the populace into accepting things like the IPCC by devaluing the concept of science in general.)

    If you're going to propel a 'homosexuality embracing' agenda into our culture, it's TV shows like the old 'Will and Grace' that get you there. The honest truths don't matter, what matters is the portrayal in what people see every week. Sure, that's been used in India to stop the effective sale of girls as slaves, but it's also used to spread lies and half-truths that lead nations to their demise.

    Totally didn't intend to blather on in this comment... much apologies... my point is that these tactics need to be used by honest folks too, not just the "we're my political ideology now that the USSR is gone" types.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your spam filter is causing trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think this will be Obama's upcoming announcement on Syria/Russia:

    "We've worked very hard on this Syrian overflight deal with Russia and after many long nights of tireless negotiations we've finally found a win-win for everybody. Russia will be flying planes over Syria and we wont. I want to commend our negotiators on an amazing effort on a very hard issue. At the end of the day we had to face the reality that Russia isn't going to budge, and this is the best deal we can get."

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice summary Dip. "How could anyone support these candidates?" proves your cognitive dissonance- as a rational, well-read, well-traveled person with common-sense, you simply can't believe there are nitwits among us, zombies on the intellectual level, including the 90% of the journolistas who self-identify as Democrats.
    Until you let it go, that some people are just plain stupid, even if college educated, its going to be a problem for you, Dip. Let it go...enjoy the decline with the 'Stang and the dogs, and the wife.

    ReplyDelete
  14. For the record, explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here all is politics in the world. General public can not understand. Clipping Path Job

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, there is something beyond politics like the love of a mother for her children.

    ReplyDelete