Democratic Debate I

I didn’t see the whole thing. Was putting kids to bed and stuff. But I did catch most of it. It was about what I expected: promises of big spending, dodges about scandals, evasion of responsibility, bashing of Republicans. To listen to the Democrats talk, you wouldn’t think Barack Obama had been President for the last seven years.

I do think they scored a few points but not enough to persuade me to vote for any of them. Frankly, sitting here just half an hour of debate, I’m having trouble remembering what they’re running on, other than Republicans Be Bad. Paid maternity leave, possibly. Criminal justice reform, maybe. More money poured into the sinkhole of higher education. Higher taxes. They are against global warming, although they don’t seem to know what to do about it. Sanders is the only one with a coherent agenda and his agenda is pretty appalling ($18 trillion in new spending).

A review of the candidates:

Jim Webb seemed out of place, a throwback to the time when the Democrats had a conservative wing. He made some good points, especially about how he’s been leading the charge on criminal justice reform. But he really doesn’t have a place in the current Democratic party.

I’m having trouble figuring out why Lincoln Chafee was even there. Technically, he’s a candidate, I guess. But my cat would probably poll better.

Martin O’Malley, or whatever android replacement they sent up there for him, reminded me of why I disliked him as mayor when he lived in Baltimore and disliked him more when he was governor. O’Malley’s record is simply terrible. He hiked taxes through the roof and left the state with a budget in shambles. He passed gun control and the city just exploded. O’Malley is the answer to every idea the Democrats have. In Maryland, he got to do everything he wanted. And the place is a wreck. And … he thinks this would make him a good President.

I kind of like Bernie Sanders. But then again, I always like people who are genuine. Sanders is the only one up there who will admit what he wants: socialized medicine, massive expansion of Social Security, vast amounts of new spending and massive tax hikes. He’s actually good on issues of drugs, civil liberties, avoiding wars and criminal justice. He was also the only one on stage talking sense about guns. I almost hope he wins the nomination. The Republicans would easily block almost everything he wants to do and he’d block the worst of what they want to do. And a Sanders candidacy would basically guarantee a Republican majority in the foreseeable future.

Hillary Clinton reminded me of why I could never vote for her. She had a very revealing comment that I’m sure the GOP will capitalize on. When asked how her Administration would be different to Obama’s, she basically said she’d be a woman. It really does come down to that for her: it’s her turn. She was denied by that uppity Obama in 2008 and that’s not happening again. She was petty, especially at the end when she was listing her enemies. She proclaimed Libya as a success. She dismissed the e-mail scandal as partisan politics (helped a lot by Kevin McCarthy shooting himself in the foot last week). Everything reminded me of why I really hope she’s not the nominee. Because it will be an ugly campaign.

Anyway, I don’t expect this will change the polls at all. O’Malley might get a little more attention, but this is still Clinton’s nomination to lose. Gun to my head, I’d probably vote for Jim Webb. But if came down to Clinton versus Sanders … well, I’ll take the honest socialist against the dishonest one.

Comments are closed.

  1. Rick Macherat

    I don’t even use “D” anymore. It’s “not-R” now. There hasn’t been a democrat individual, a democrat utterance or as much as a democrat thought for seven years in this country. “Not-Republican” is working very well for them.


    Original Member No. 1

    Thumb up 1

  2. richtaylor365

    Lets see; Global Warning yadda yadda, free stuff for everyone paid for by those evil 1 percenters, more wealth redistribution (who cares about creating it), same ole one trick pony, they got nothin’. The dems really are the children, minus the courtesy (at least Oliver Twist said ,”please”).

     He’s actually good on issues of drugs, civil liberties, avoiding wars and criminal justice.

    How so? He would be a disaster for the drug industry. The reason they spend billions on research trying to find new drugs that save lives is to make money. Take out the profit motive and they will say ,”F*ck it, we are moving the corporation to Switzerland”.  I doubt he would make changes to the NSA or government surveillance, socialists just love to spy on their detractors, just ask Putin. Yeah, he would avoid wars, he would avoid all confrontations period, iow, there would be zero American influence around the world, not a good thing.

     Gun to my head, I’d probably vote for Jim Webb. 

    I would vote for Webb over a number of the GOP also rans. He seems like an honest man, a man of integrity who would subordinate the wishes of the loon progressives to that of the nation’s greater good. He is the only sane choice.



    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000 *

    Should have clarified I meant about illegal drugs. His ideas about legal drugs are shit.

    It’s amazing listening to the Democrats. I keep thinking, “Yep, that’s a problem. We need to address it. But fuck a duck, your plan for “fixing” it is only going to make it way way worse.”

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Hillary’s answer to the enemies question was one of the worst of the night, even though no one picked up on it. As Charles Cooke pointed out, you can see Rubio just flattening her with that: “How are you going to work with Republicans when you boast that we’re your enemies?”  The correct answer to that question is that you’re not proud of any enemies you’ve created.  Just bad bad politics and I think it’s going to come back to bite her.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that while the media are cooing over the debate, it was actually a bad debate for Clinton. She wasn’t attacked. She wasn’t tested. Some of her answers were terrible if you’re not a liberal.  Whoever emerges from the GOP field will have survived a gauntlet.  Clinton will have survived a coronation.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Hal_10000 *

    I also thought Clinton go the worst of the exchange on gun control, even though the pundits said she won. Sanders said something very reasonable: that gun control is not popular with most Americans and they should set a more modest agenda. But because the press themselves love gun control, they thought Clinton did well by going to Sanders’ left.

    Thumb up 0

  6. onetwothree


    As Charles Cooke pointed out, you can see Rubio just flattening her with that: “How are you going to work with Republicans when you boast that we’re your enemies?” The correct answer to that question is that you’re not proud of any enemies you’ve created. Just bad bad politics and I think it’s going to come back to bite her.

    The days of democrats working with republicans are over. The republicans killed that dog many many times over the last 8 years. Now there is a Democratic Party with no more fucks to give. Did anyone on that stage say they want to work with republicans?

    Thumb up 0

  7. onetwothree

    And which Republican Party would one work with? Who is even in charge of the republicans?

    15–ish? running for president? 20–ish? Running for speaker?

    Thumb up 0

  8. Hal_10000 *

    The days of democrats working with republicans are over. The republicans killed that dog many many times over the last 8 years. Now there is a Democratic Party with no more fucks to give. Did anyone on that stage say they want to work with republicans?

    They’ll have a Republican Congress.  They’ll have no choice.

    Thumb up 0

  9. richtaylor365

    The days of democrats working with republicans are over. The republicans killed that dog many many times over the last 8 years

    Hahaha!! So it’s the Republican that are intransigent? I guess you forgot the hundreds (yeah, hundreds) of bi-partisan passed House bills that died sitting on Harry Reid’s desk. Even that bastion of conservative thought the NY Times knows an obstructionist when they see one;

    The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.

    Even in the minority he can still create mischief;

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is vowing to use Senate rules to block the entire appropriations process — an aggressive new phase in the Democrats’ legislative strategy that could invite charges that he’s creating the same kind of gridlock Reid accused Republicans of when they were in the minority.

    And who was it that bragged that he has a phone and a pen, and does not need Congress?

    But yeah, blame the Republicans, sheesh!



    Thumb up 2

  10. Section8

    Hello onetwothree

    I thought I’d stop by the old litterbox to see what crap Hal managed to spew out this time. If you’re new and haven’t read much of this blog, let me clue you in. Hal is a fraud, period.

    He is no conservative of any stripe, and only votes for an unvetted untested Libertarian candidate because he knows they don’t have a shot in hell of winning. Basically he’ll do it for brownie points. He’s just a plain and simple bullshitter who promotes less government in theory, but will run for the hills every time if there is the slightest possibility of that coming to fruition.

    He wrote may articles blasting Obamacare, for example, but he’ll throw anyone under the bus who takes a stand against it.

    The first excuse was fighting it would be foolish (such as a government shutdown), and keep the GOP out of the presidency and hurt their chances in congress, even though they damn near swept the midterms two years later.

    Then of course he’s been against having any majority that could actually accomplish reducing Obamacare and other big government programs come election time. So it’s just plain bullshit. Then he’ll claim any GOP majority would do nothing anyhow, even though he’d never support them if the did! Classic.

    Hal is exactly the same old bullshit, pretend for less government, but be fine with more of it that made the GOP a failure in the early and mid 2000. Now I think we all know the GOP voters have long since had enough of pretending and not performing, and are trying to chase out the very GOP establishment he pretends he’s against. Hal still support their existence, so then he can complain about their existence. The guy is all over the map.

    Since he’s the only real consistent writer here anymore, I’d suggest finding a better blog out there, before you waste too much much time.

    Now Hal, I’m not suggesting you give up blogging. I think the more time you piss away doing this,this the less time you’ll have to fuck up something else, and given your piss poor running of this blog has reduced it to near zero viewers, you can’t do much harm posting your nonsense now. I mean at least you’ve got CM buzzing around. Seriously though Hal, name one sane person that would call themselves a conservative, and then hope for a Socialist to win. What an ass.

    And onetwothree, your point that there is divided government now, and they continue to screw us (because of out of control Democrats and the establishment GOP who Hal does not want to see chased out) is perfectly valid and deserves an answer. Well Hal just isn’t going to respond to that, because that would require and honest answer which he has none.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Hal_10000 *

    S8, good to see you finally were able to replace your computer. I understand the last one broke under the stress of all that enraged spittle flying all over it.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Section8

    lol, let me help you out. It was also all my “racism”, “sexism”, “hate of the environment”, “hate of everything”, “the children”, and all the other leftist buzzwords that make up a typical lame response. Of course what is missing is any challenge to my points, because you have none.  Maybe “Who knows what I’m thinking?” would now be a better and more accurate title for this blog.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

    Section 8, as far as I know (or remember) Hal never claimed to be either a conservative or a Republican, so in that regard calling him a fraud is a bit harsh. I would consider him an Independent with libertarian tendencies, even though I believe he voted for Obama, twice, and buys in to the AGW theory with gusto.

    I really don’t mind him pointing out what douche-wagon lame brains the GOP establishment is, I am embarrassed at how inept and incapable they have been compared to the hard ball brass knuckle politics the dems play.

    And don’t blame Hal for our dismal readership, I put that on the administrators for failing to renovate our dilapidated site.

    Thumb up 1

  14. Section8

    Hey Rich, you need to post more threads man, and Thrill needs to come back, and if Alex would tone down the labels of “libtard” and such, which he seemed to be sort of doing, I’d read more of his stuff too since he actually believes in what he says he believes in.

    Anyhow, as little as a few weeks ago Hal made the claim he was conservative.

    “Conservatives, including myself, are not immune from this, obviously. We’ve had six years of people trying to tar Obama as a communist or an America-hater or whatever. ” ….

    I have no issue with anyone pointing out the issues with the GOP. I was bitching about them on this blog with their fast and loose spending back in 2004 or 2005. I don’t even think Hal was on this blog back then. So calling them out for being Democrat lite is not an issue for me, and to my knowledge, I was doing it here before he was. It’s when throwing the non Democrat lites under a bus and still pretending you actually believe in anything consistent is where it gets old. It’s when you ignore the ongoing voter revolt is when it gets old.

    There are legitimate complaints, and then there’s complaining for the sake of complaining. Here you have a guy who complains about Obama right now. Why? This is exactly the setup he says he wants. Divided government. In fact, he’s hoping an even more left wing version of Obama will win. Seriously do you see any logic in this? Hal basically pulled this during last election too. So no, it’s hard to take any of his “conservative free market” posts seriously. He’s like the guy on the Walking Dead; get me to Washington and I can help with a cure, and then sabotages every attempt to get there because the guy was full of crap all along.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Hal_10000 *

    I described myself as libertarian-conservative, somewhere in between.  My instincts are libertarian but my philosophy is conservative, if that makes sense.  I am definitely not a Republican anymore, though I could be brought back under the right circumstances.

    I’ve voted Libertarian in the last three Presidential elections.  Two of those votes were in Texas and one was in Pennsylvania.  In neither case did it make a difference. I’ve consistently voted Republican for House, Senate and state legislature (although I did vote against Corbett for governor last time because he was such an asshole).

    I’m usually OK with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, since they can check each other’s worst instincts.  It also gives the Republicans a focal point. I don’t think they have the electoral success in the House, Senate and state legislatures they’ve had were it not for Obama.

    But I might vote Republican this time around since a) I can’t stand Clinton; b) the conservatives on the Supreme Court aren’t getting any younger and the idea of Clinton appointing two or three justices is kind of scary.

    Thumb up 0

View Mobile Site