Decision ‘08

Random Thoughts On The Democratic Debate

Ye gods, that was just about unbearable. The more I see of these debates, the more convinced I am that they are an almost completely useless contrivance. But I’ll plow ahead:

One, the reason I could NEVER be a Democrat is summed up nicely by the round of applause Kucinich got when he suggested we leave NAFTA and the WTO. When it comes to the economy, the Democratic base is full of Luddites.

Speaking of Kucinich…the man is a foolish Utopian.

John Edwards and Bill Richardson are two of the most annoying people on the planet: Edwards, because he so blatantly panders to the base, and Richardson, because of his annoying habit of answering every question but the one asked by talking about his experience and then going on to promise the sun, the moon, and the stars. He has no clue about the proper role of the presidency and it’s difficult to believe there is anyone who seriously thinks he can run a presidential campaign.

Who won? I guess Obama…everyone else pretty much made me want to throw a brick through my TV (and it’s a new HDTV, so you know I was REALLY aggravated). Biden did score a few points with his tough, no-nonsense routine, but he went to that well at least once too often…

15 Responses to “Random Thoughts On The Democratic Debate”

1 Sandy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
While unable to resist watching this debate, and wondering why, I thought of your grading of the previous debate. I couldn’t give grades but thought perhaps awards could be given:
Edwards: Taking No Guff (or whatever) Award
Obama: Pure Blather Award
Kucinich: I Love Cliches Award
Biden: You Can’t Out Loud Me Award (pure volume)
Gravel: Painful Truth Award
Richardson: Socialist Solutions Award
Dodd: Did He Say Anything? Award
Clinton: Wide Eyed Wonder Award (who are these people and why am I saying these things?)

I truly think the clear winner is Wolf Blitzer.
2 Paul Romano Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I have just two words for random thoughts “Double Guantanamo” Is that like a double cheeseburger at Jack in the Box?
3 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 5:36 am
The format was atrocious. I think everyone agrees that either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards will be the nominee, but that doesn’t really excuse the way Blitzer all but ignored everyone else on the stage. The fact that the three of them were sitting together at the center of the stage only made it easier.

That said, for what screen time he got, I think Dodd may have been the winner on the merits. He struck me as the most thoughtful person on the stage. Biden is a blowhard who, for some strange reason, decided to run to the right to win the Democratic primary. I guess he has nothing to lose at this point, but does he really think that’s a good idea? Between his “we need 67 votes to end this war” and Clinton’s “this is George Bush’s war” I was wondering if anyone else up there could completely shirk their responsibility for any kind of governing. Just shameful.

I think Edwards did a nice job. He clearly came to play ball and he just didn’t let up on Clinton all night. Which is good - she’s probably going to be the nominee, so someone needs to keep her honest. Although I guess her unwillingness to say her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake must be jaw-droppingly honest; with public (and Democratic) opinion where it is, what the hell else could she be doing besides just plain being a hawk? If she loses the nomination it’ll be because she insists on continuing to play along with George Bush’s chickenhawk crap.

I thought the Edwards-Obama lovefest was really odd. Were they trying to leave the door open for VP slots on each other’s tickets? It seems like either an Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket would be a mistake - too much youth. But I can’t see what else could have been happening there. Maybe just painting Hillary as a crazy to take off some of her frontrunner edge.

Finally, I remember being really fed up when the crazy lefty loons were Sharpton and whatshername in 2004 (and Keyes in 2000 for the right), but the crazies are really striking a chord this time around. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have been, if a little loopy, a breath of fresh air. In the last eight years, the prevarication, sneering lies, and newspeak political games of this administration have completely poisoned American politics (and keep in mind that the administration right before this one was pretty good at prevarication all on its own!), and it’s nice to see a couple people call BS when the room is full of it. Kucinich’s answer on health care last night (essentially “You’re all pandering idiots and pawns of the insurance companies”) was maybe the best answer I’ve seen anyone give for any question in any debate so far this time around. He’s still a nut, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that.
4 Mark Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Wow, Ryan, if your case of BDS gets any stronger, I’m going to have to start calling you Peter! Just kidding, Peter (and Ryan)…
5 peter Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I think Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr are also showing signs of Bush Derangement these days — so I must be in good company –
6 Mark Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Did you watch the debate, Peter? As our longest standing Democratic regular, I’m curious as to your thoughts if you did…
7 peter Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Nah — watched the Yankees-Red Sox game instead, along with part of the Sopranos — infinitely better than watching politicians bloviate!
8 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’m going to take my being lumped with Newt, Peter, and (oh, you know) the roughly 60% of the electorate who think Bush is incompetent as a compliment. With company like that, I must be doing something right.
9 Mark Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Suit yourself - 6 years into the Bush presidency I’m not going to win you over, so I won’t even try. I just can’t escape the feeling (not directed at you, necessarily, Ryan, but in general) that if Iraq had worked out better everyone would be falling all over themselves with how great a president Bush is. The natural question to me, then, is do you follow a policy because it’s a guaranteed success, or do you do the best you can knowing things may not turn out the way you wanted them to?…meaning at least Bush made the effort to change the dynamic in the Middle East, rather than just sending another diplomat to another endless series of pointless negotiations that basically come down to everyone hating Israel…
10 Peter Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I think that Bush would have presided over a failed Presidency even if he never went into Iraq.

What has he accomplished?
11 Aaron Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Quite true, Mark. The worst presidents in history, according to the weighted scholarly rankings from the Federalist Society, weren’t those who tried and failed; they were the ones that didn’t even try. Those who at least tried to accomplish something great and ambitious but fell short of the mark ended up near the middle.
12 Mark Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Peter, he put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, he pushed through a huge package of tax cuts, he’s deposed Saddam Hussein and toppled the Taliban, and he steered the nation admirably in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and that’s just off the top of my head. Not a bad record…AND he was the first Republican two-termer since Ronald Reagan…
13 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 5th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Mark, you’ll win me on Alito and Roberts, but I doubt that’ll get you Peter. The tax cuts were mind-bendingly irresponsible, deposing the Taliban was a no brainer (although he hasn’t even bothered to try securing Afghanistan), and the use of “toppling Saddam” begs the question (we’re talking about how his presidency fails without Iraq). You also aren’t going to get either Peter or me to agree that Bush’s leadership post-9/11 has been admirable in any serious or long-term sense, I’m guessing. Let’s add in reckless and out-of-control spending, naked power grabs by the executive, torture and all related Gitmo activities, the serious dismantling of the American image abroad, an eavesdropping program to which even JOHN ASHCROFT objected, the politically-motivated firing of US Attorneys who refused to do the bidding of the Republican Party, massive prescription drug boondoggle, Federal Marriage Amendment… am I missing anything?

Bottom line: I don’t doubt we’d like Bush more if it weren’t for Iraq, but it’s not like his presidency has been remarkable for really much of anything except embarrassing fiscal policy, awful domestic priorities, and foreign policy seemingly dedicated to make the Middle East more radical than before he entered office. I’ll give him points for endorsing a Palestinian state and putting Alito and Roberts on the Court, but I honestly can’t think of anything else he’s done that I think is worthy of praise.
14 Peter Says:
June 5th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Hate to be the skunk in the garden party, but I think it is way too early to claim either Roberts or Alito as achievements. Filling Supreme Court vacancies is one of the things Presidents do: if a Democratic President put Allen Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe on the Court, would that be an achievement? Maybe so: but you wouldn’t know for a very long time.

My guess is that Roberts will be a good or even great jurist — he certainly has the resume for it — and Alito will be an other dud like Clarence Thomas: an undistinguished jurist chosen for political reasons (in Alito’s case, to give social conservatives an obviously anti-abortion justice). However, it’s way too soon to know. The Bush administration has named some of the worst people in memory to fill top positions (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Ridge, Bremer, Browne, etc.) — whether his judicial picks are an exception remains to be seen.
15 Peter Says:
June 5th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Not to be churlish here: I do agree with Ryan that Bush deserves credit for endorsing a Palestinian state, as well as his support of an immigration bill which, though flawed, is probably as good as we can get.