Carol Platt Liebau: "Highlights" of the Democratic Debate

Sunday, June 03, 2007

"Highlights" of the Democratic Debate

Question: Why are all these candidates so angry? Watching the Republican debate, one gets the sense that two of the three frontrunners (Giuliani and Romney) are enjoying the give and take. With the Democratic field, it's all fevered denunciation and rage. Maybe this is just to reach out to the angry netroots, but it certainly isn't appealing. Did any of them smile, genuinely, all night?

* How scary is it when "Slow Joe" Biden starts sounding like the voice of sense and reason? You know you're watching a group of extremists when the concept of not defunding troops fighting a war becomes a matter of debate, and "Slow Joe" starts making relative sense.

* Hillary Clinton thinks we are safer than we were before 9/11 (and, presumably, during her husand's administration. Barack Obama refuses to give the President credit even for the absence of terrorist attacks on the homeland over the past 5 and a half years.

* Neither Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards actually took the time to read the National Intelligence Estimate for themselves before sending troops into harm's way. Well, maybe that's what happens when a politician knows how s/he has to vote for political reasons, and the facts and the evidence just aren't that important to them.

* Mike Gravel is the only candidate who believes English should be the official language of the United States. Hillary says that such a law would prevent, for example, the hiring of translators in hospitals -- but it's not clear to me why a city or state couldn't hire such people. After all, it's the law of the US that illegal immigrants can't work or live in this country, but all the Democratic senators on stage tonight voted against Norm Coleman's amendment to the immigration bill that would have outlawed "sanctuary cities" where immigration laws are completely and deliberately overlooked.

* The Democrats are either completely unacquainted with the laws of supply and demand, or else are the biggest panderers the world has ever known. Actually, both. Asked how they plan to bring gas prices down, they neglected to mention that lower gas prices will only lead to more gas consumption -- something they are putatively against. What's more, "ending subsidies" for the energy companies, as they describe it, will only decrease incentives to drill and find new energy . . . which, in turn, will serve to keep supply lower and prices higher.

* Mike Gravel says he "get[s] his meds" from the Veterans' Administration. Obviously there's a need for serious VA health care reform.

* Dennis Kucinich wouldn't take out bin Laden, essentially no matter what. He wants him tried in an international court. What a loon.

* Joe Biden said the US should go into Darfur even if the UN doesn't act. Wait a minute -- if it was so terribly wrong to go into Iraq without the UN's imprimatur, why is it OK to do it in Darfur? Perhaps it makes everything Ok if we're headed over to "occupy" an area where we have no real strategic interest -- withdraw from Iraq, but hasten to Darfur.

* Bill Richardson said that the US "doesn't care about Africa." But President Bush has paid more attention to Africa than President Clinton ever did, sending an unprecedented amount of aid, especially when it comes to fighting AIDS. And didn't the Rwanda genocide happen on Clinton's watch?

* Hillary Clinton talks about how "we" balanced the budget and cut spending. Was she (or her husband) part of the Republican Congress -- which, last I checked, was the branch that passes the spending bill?

* Mike Gravel is like the Howard Beale of this camapaign. It was entertaining when he pointed out -- accuratelyb -- that the Clinton budget was "balanced" by using the social security funds (and that's been the case for years now, under D's and R's alike).


Blogger LarryD said...

Even without the hard questions, the extremism shows. Excellent.

10:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home