What Was Missing In The Democrat Debate

So I watched the Democrat debate tonight in its entirety, just taking it in. Is there an industry they wouldn't attack? From Hedge Funds, Defense, the Airlines, Insurance companies and, of course, the Oil Companies, it seems they all have investigations, regulations, or some restrictions in mind, assuming they flat out don't just want to do away with it completely?

Not once did I hear anything even remotely referencing the individual and certainly nothing that might challenge one. Apparently people can't become Doctors ... unless the government pays their tuition - and the trend discussed was free college for all at the government's expense. I mean, why should people be expected to invest in such a thing themselves? And they seem to be advocating having the State take charge of children as early as from two - four years-old. It's as if parenting should be relegated to a two-year proposition. Okay, you birthed the thing, we'll take it from here.

Medical research? We don't need the Pharma's, just turn it over to the NIH, while increasing governmental education-based grants for research across the board. There seemed to be no room for a market-based dynamic in such things at all.

As for the blow by blow, Hillary did get caught out for her double-talk, but Obama came off mostly flat, taking shots at Romney, more than anything else. What the heck was that about? I thought Richardson looked to be playing for the Veep slot by giving Hillary cover against any attacks.

Edwards sounded like a mix of Jimmy Carter, Opie, and dopey, even the candidates he previously dismissed as not serious sounded more substantial than him. Still, I came away thinking about what was missing, as opposed to what was there. It's as if what Government, not people, can accomplish is ultimately the only thing that matters to the lot of them. And I find nothing whatsoever inspirational about that. And nothing to vote for, either. But, in fairness, I mostly knew that going in.

Jim Geraghty has much more of the play by play.

Comments

[seekeronos]

"--- And they seem to be advocating having the State take charge of children as early as from two - four years-old. It's as if parenting should be relegated to a two-year proposition. Okay, you birthed the thing, we'll take it from here. ---"

Good grief Dan, that's not the sort of thing I want to read before going to bed. Yikes, the "Jedi State" cometh... and the Russkies back in day had a similar idea of handing out free red Komsomol scarves and Lenin pins to newborns, and dare I violate poor Mr. Godwin again by bringing up a certain nation fond of Fraktur typography, pointy helmets, beer, and pork sausages for its practices with state-imposed child-rearing to ensure that no nasty untermenschen fouled the Fatherland's gene pool.

I'll thank the Dems to kindly stay out of the delivery room the next time we get around to having a kid. As it is, I am already beginning to dread the day when my first-born gets packed off to his State-backed indoctrination.

And free college? Tell me there'll be no "management of education 'options' and career progression, based upon standardized test scores".

Sounds like the Dems have a series of pretty five-year plans that would make the reddest Marxist green with envy.

Man, like I said in several other threads... scratch a Democrat, find a totalitarian socialist.

[Worst President Ever]

As opposed to the midgets the Republicans are running? Caught the pictures of Rudy in drag? Now there's some presidential material. Or Mitt, who's more than willing to be on any side of the issue, just as long as you give him your vote. Or Savior Fred, who seems to be so boring voters are fleeing in droves.

Watch a Republican debate and see how often the words "Presidant Bush" are sounded. You'd think everyone'd forgotten he's our president. But Reagan, it's like a chant.

Oh yeah, looks like they arrested another Family Values Republican getting friendly with another guy. When will it end?

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2007/10/10302007_Police-report-sheds-new-light-on-Curtis-encounter.cfm

[seekeronos]

Oh, come one, WPE... try to keep up. Even ol' BoobInStamford beat you to the punch on that.

And besides, this really is no big surprise. Sin is sin, and those who persist in it tend to get caught. Especially politicians in an election year. Go figure.

As for Fred!, he might very well be as boring as a hairbrush, but he is stale, and he much, much smarter than the MSM will give him credit for. Between him or Hucklebee, I'd be satisfied with either of them as the POTUS, much more the GOP nominee.

Rudi is a moral midget, and Flippy McFlop is about as artificial as Hitlary is. Nearly a mirror image, almost, except he might need a little less rouge than the Great Cankled Cow from Chappaqua. Or is it Chicago? Or perhaps South Chillicothe, Arkansas?

[docweasel]

The instructive thing to me was how rattled she got when she was on the ropes. She didn't recover quickly with a good answer, she hemmed and hawed stalling for time, she seemed unready for the question, which is inexcusable, Dodd, to his credit, jumped right on it which shows his prep was better than hers. I think if the R's get a good attack dog candidate like Rudy, McCain or Thompson, they can attack her with impunity. No one is going to see her as "picked on", they are going to see her as weak and unready. Which she actually is, for all her 'discipline'.

[bobInStamford]

"The instructive thing to me was how rattled she got when she was on the ropes. She didn't recover quickly with a good answer, she hemmed and hawed stalling for time, she seemed unready for the question."

Inexcusable? This from the mouthbreathers that voted for GW Bush - TWICE.

Amazing...

[joated]

WPE, fact is the Dems bring up Bush so often because the think they are running against him. The Republicans bring up Hillary because they KNOW they will probably be running against her.

[Tom]

"Rudi is a moral midget, and Flippy McFlop is about as artificial as Hitlary is. Nearly a mirror image, almost, except he might need a little less rouge than the Great Cankled Cow from Chappaqua."

Holy cow, is this post a parody? "Flippy McFlop"? "Hitlary"? Gee, why didn't you throw in a "Shrub" or "John Skerry" for good measure?

You know what a post full of political name-puns signals to smart people? That the post and its author do not merit any serious consideration. You probably have intelligent, worthwhile things to say about politics -- why don't you present them in such a way that they're not immediately discounted by others?

[supernintendo Chalmers]

Tom, a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.

Perhaps you have neither?

Nice condescending post, friend.

[jerry]

Biden was the BEST with his Rudy comments. We watched it in the MD lounge last night and Biden's quip's about Dumbo got ghe most applause. I never knew so many well educated prominent physicians despise Guiliani. It was refreshing!!

[Tom]

"Tom, a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence. Perhaps you have neither? Nice condescending post, friend."

You think the complaint about name-punning is unique to me? I'm far from alone. This stuff (the "Hitlery"/"Shrub" sort of thing) seemed to hit a peak before the 2004 election, as blogs and other Internet forums were emerging big-time. And there was a complementary backlash against it in all sorts of smart corners of the Web.

So I was only half-kidding when I asked if I'd stumbled onto a bit of parody when I read the commenter's post here.

As for "humor": That would be fine if the people wielding the name-puns actually seemed to think politics were a laughing matter. Largely, they don't. They are trying to make earnest points, unaware that their rhetorical approach causes many to at best ignore them and at worst scoff at them. The puns are, quite literally, name-calling -- perhaps the lowest and most unproductive form of debate.

I suspect that "seekeronos" and I are on the same side in the bigger fight here. I'd prefer not to see my allies wasting their time and resources with arguments that ultimately will have no resonance. Let the left squander its energy with that stuff. My post wasn't meant to be condescending. Consider it an act of tough love.

[David M]

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/31/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2007/10/web-reconnaissance-for-10312007.html

[seekeronos]

Point well taken, Tom.

On occasion, though... I do like to poke fun along with the rest of the regular commenters here from both sides of the spectrum at our public figures. It does help blow off steam here in the RWV comments section with the regular lefty trolls like BobinStamford, et. al.

I still stand by my earlier observations:

Mitt Romney is the calculating and shapeshifting, flip-flopping Hillary of the GOP. I have a very hard time believing that he is going to serve (small-"c") conservative interests in terms of a smaller, less obtrusive government. While some may say that he has to overcome a legacy of trying to be a conservative in a state with an *extremely* dense population of liberals, and had to play the political game to get and keep his governor's job - which traded on the lives of unborn babies and the allowance of social policies destructive to a proven familial construct which has been the standard of Western society for the better part of historic human existence... then I'll pass on him. Really. I pray that he tanks in Iowa, NH and SC.

Rudy Guliani's past is too colorful and fraught with moral shortcomings to endear him very much to the social conservatives and "evangelical" Christians. (and yes, I *do* have a reason for using the "not really air-quotes" there). Despite his promise to appoint strict constructionist SCOTUS justices, I really do not think that he will move to contribute to the rolling back of Roe v. Wade.

Fred! is well... a really smart, elder statesman who needs some coaching and perhaps some better campaign advisors. I like him because he is probably one of the most down-to-earth men to run for the office of POTUS in a long time. He isn't Ronaldus Magnus Communicatorum... (ack! the name-pun strikes again!) but perhaps his talents may yet shine forth in areas where even the Ronald may have lacked.

Huckabee? He'd make a fine VP, and after that grooming, an excellent POTUS. In fact, I think he might even be more viable for the actual duties of POTUS (a plus for his executive experience) as well as his values which mesh very closely with mine. However, he may be even less of an "attack dog" than Fred! ... really, he is just a nice guy. Unfortunately, this brutal game does not cater to "nice" folks. Of course, that might be just what this nation needs - a candidate without the hangups and the killer, alpha-male instinct but with guts and smarts and a truly (small-"c") conservative outlook.

McCain can do me a favour and drop out of the race already. He'd definitely go tell Ahmadinejad where to go, but he'd also tell Rand-McNally to start publishing those maps showing the entirety of North America as a single contiguous nation.

And Hillary? She's definitely the Hsu-in Dem candidate... for as sorry as Hillary might have been in the debate last night, she still beats out nearly everyone else in that gaggle of lunatics the DNC is putting up to the contest, with the possible exception of Biden.

[old trooper]

I watched their discussion. It was hardly a debate.
My point is that each of the Democrats seemed to believe that they were going to run against
GWB, not a Republican nominee.

That is my impression.

[jj]

"What was missing in the Democratic Debate"

Let me see, so much to say, so little time. I didn't see anyone there who will be able to bring the people of the US together. I didn't see anyone there who wasn't a partisan trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator on the Left. I didn't see anyone there who would be able to pull us out of this morass we're in. In all fairness to them, I'm not sure I see what we need on the Republican side, either, but the question was asked about the Democrats.

[seekeronos]

Ever since the Dems have been trying to manage all of their various "special interests" under their big tend... it's been a zoo.

I mean, when the larger focus was on unions and worker's rights and a strong domestic industry, and a more moderate range of positions on national defense (avoid wars, but when they must be fought, fight them with all due diligence)... it was a party that contended well against the Republicans.

Now, it's all about mollifying the freaks on the fringes, whether it be the Polyamourists, or the LGBTXYZ (gay) lobby... abortionists, euthanasiasts, health care socialists, anarchists and Islamist, immigration, and overabundant multi-culti-beating white folks over the head with the Truncheon of Guilt®...

...it is any wonder that chameleons like Hillary rise to the surface... able to appear to promise anything to everyone, but actually guaranteeing nothing.