Monday, June 04, 2007


I listened this morning to most of last night's Democratic debate and learned enough to confirm that I will not be voting Democrat in November 2008.

Clear themes:

1. We have to quit subsidizing the oil companies, strip away and redistribute their profits when they get too high, and investigate them for price gouging and price fixing. John Edwards, after he loses, may be just the man for the job.

2. We have to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for universal health care. Robin Hood not available for comment.

3. Fence along Mexican border, bad. Rather, increase the number of federal employees along the border, and don't forget Canada, that's a really big border with the opportunity to create many new federal employees to drink coffee and read the New Yorker along it.

4. We must not only do away with "don't ask, don't tell" in the military and let gays and lesbians serve (one another?) openly, we must follow the lead of the enlightened New England states and embrace domestic partnerships and civil unions. (Applause.)

Hillary's position on why she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq is now that she assumes President Bush would allow time for the investigators to complete their job of verifying whether Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, and that she never thought (with dismay at the inhumanity even now as she speaks of it) that he would fail to do that before abusing his power and using force in Iraq. Check back tomorrow for an update on what her position was at that time.

Hillary says it is absolutely imperative that Iran not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. I guess the same imperative did not apply to Iraq.

Joe Biden assures us that Iran is "decades away" from obtaining an effective nuclear device. However, if they were to develop one "and stick it on a pad," he would "take it out." Well, that's comforting. Maybe they'll put strobe lights on it too.

Call me a prude or a bigot, but in light of what President Clinton took the country through because of his sexual improprieties (which I know assumes some standards of morality to which the candidates on the dais and the applauding audience do not subscribe), I think that Hillary coming out as a lesbian while serving as President of the United States would be a net negative for the nation.

And John Edwards wants to talk to me about restoring trust in the presidency. John Edwards. Okay.

Wolf was pretty good about going back to the questions he asked that the candidates did not answer. Not that it helped, but I give him credit. He still won't ask the obvious questions like:

"What would you have done as President following 9/11?"

"What do you expect to happen when you pull the troops out of Iraq, and what will you do about it?"

"What are America's political and economic interests in the Middle East, without referring in your answer to the current administration?"

"Are you opposed to the use of military force generally, or only in Iraq? What is your specific philosophy regarding the purpose and use of the US military?"

"If you go on defense against terrorism and a catastrophic terrorist event takes place on American soil, will that be your fault? Would your policies change in that circumstance?"

"What is your argument for having both houses and the executive all Democrat-controlled?"

"What do you personally stand for, using positive language only?"

But such direct questions will never get direct answers. I kid myself.

The choice is clear, the majority of Americans do not support the core ideals of these candidates, and if the Republicans had the nuts to take opposing positions and call the question, we could skip all this b.s. and get on with conservative rule.


Tom said...

Insightful and hilarious. You're at the top of your game.

Dude said...

Agreed - E is running hot. This in particular cracks me up: "What do you personally stand for, using positive language only?" It is as if addressing third graders. The funny thing is that all through the debate, Wolf kept posing a scenario and then asking the candidates to raise their hands if they agree. I can't believe presidential debates have come to this, and I actually applauded Hillary for calling him out on the manuever.

I watched a good amount of the show and the whole time I just kept imaging what these things must have been like 150 years ago before CNN was in charge of telling us what to think about it and before the audience questions were carefully preselected.

I loved how the cast of characters were arranged with everyone converging on Clinton the frontrunner. She was flanked by Obama and Edwards, as if they are closing in on her. They in turn are flanked by a couple of wildcards who are looking to make inroads, and finally you have the crazy guys on the ends where they can't hog camera time until Wolf graciously directs a question their way.

Dude said...

On theme 1: When the boys on stage began talking about investigating the oil companies for price gouging and reinvesting some of those profits into R&D for competing technologies, I said "wow" and Marci, ever-hopeful that I will become a leftist, thought that I was finally hearing my dream expressed. I followed with "could you even imagine if they were talking about some other industry, like if their platform was to limit the amount of profit that Microsoft can make because they feel Bill Gates has enough money and they think some of that money should go directly to Apple in fairness? The evil oil companies are bringing us the petroleum that we so demand and will pay anything for. Why punish them? We should invest in them." Marci, her dream shattered, was asleep soon after, dreaming of a day when we will not judge people by the color of their skin but of the content of their bank accounts.

E said...

Dude, I am still laughing aloud at your comments four minutes later.

Tom said...

Yeah, that's a blue-darter, Dude. I'm having E's reaction.

How poor is Marci willing to be in order to form a fair America?

E said...

There is already a mechanism for using the riches of the rich to take care of the needs of the poor. It is called charitable giving and studies find conclusively than Republicans do a lot more of it than Democrats do.

Dude said...

Come on, E, you know it only counts if it is compulsory.

Post a Comment