Sunday, June 3

Democrat Debate

I watched the Democratic Debate this evening. All I can say is 'Wow!' because one of these people may end up running the country.

I didn't really have any expectations. Barack seemed to under perform, although that might be because I'm around young people and they seem to be his main support. It was funny when one of the other candidates recognized him for being against the war from the beginning because he was elected to Congress at the end of 2004.

None of them give me strong feelings in either direction other than Kucinich. Before I just thought he was a funny looking outsider, but now I know he's crazy as well, though he wants to end NAFTA and the WTO, which is good.

In addition to Kucinich, Biden, Dodd and Gravel seem to be the other second tier candidates. Dodd did well I think, but he doesn't especially stand out. Biden seemed pretty good, but angry. Gravel, who pronounces it Gravél (ever seen that DuMass commercial?), I like. He's pretty spunky and isn't afraid to call people out and tell it like it is.

As it stands right now, as far as who could actually be elected, I think I could tolerate Bill Richardson the most. He's very well qualified, especially as he's actually in the Executive branch as a governor and not a congressman. John Edwards comes off as a smarmy southern lawyer. It was funny to see him define his boundary for 'rich'. I was wondering what accent Hillary would bring. For me, the main good thing about Hillary is that the Clintons are good at budgeting.

Hillary brought the closest thing to funny this evening when she said something like "sending Dick Cheney to other countries is not very diplomatic". Other than that, many of the things they spoke about were quite unsettling.

First of all: gas prices. They want to hold oil companies accountable, blah blah blah. It's funny because the joke is on you, the common folk! They think you're stupid. Unless, the Constitution says that Congress runs a post office and an oil company, they've no business doing that. They are right when they attempt to pass about price gouging. They are wrong when they target the oil companies. It isn't the companies, they want to provide gas as cheaply as possible. It's OPEC. They're the international oil cartel. They limit the amount of oil exported from their member countries to control the price. It's as simple as that.

If gas costs too much, it's funny because you did it to yourself (and that's what really hurts). Do you live as close as possible to your job? Your town's businesses? But it's not completely your fault you have to buy gas, your government helped you by zoning the land to be too low density to walk anywhere. Doesn't all that grass look nice now? They also built and expanded public roads making your commute possible and you dependant on your car without a direct cost to you. If put the cost of roads and subsidies, and even the cost of military action as one of the Dems pointed out, back into gas it'd be over $7, on par with everywhere else in the world.

You think cars and oil are dirty? Before there were cars they used horses. Cities were much more dirtier. Can you imagine how much of a shithole cities were in the 19th century? Take London, the largest city in the world in the 1800's for example. There were tens of thousands of horses eating and pooping in the streets and living in multistory stables. That would certainly stink up the place. Don't even mention having to cross the street.

Back to the debate, they spoke about Iraq. They all want to simply "redeploy" which is just avoiding the word 'retreat'. I don't get it. This war doesn't end when we say it does. There are people out there that want to see us all dead. If they're not attacking our soldiers in the desert, then they'll be attacking our office workers over our cities again. Anyone hear of London, Madrid, the NY pipeline yesterday? I know we won't be able to just sit there for the long term, but we should at least make a good attempt at giving the Iraqis something decent and then leave, instead of just dropping the pieces all of a sudden and running away.

On a side note, here's an oxymoron: force democracy.

What's with them? Bill Richardson made a reference to an "Apollo" scale initiative for the environment. I see Tammy Baldwin's dementia is spreading like West Nile and it's all the way to New Mexico already.

One of the scariest things for me is universal healthcare. This sums it up:

They even said the heathcare system needs to be more efficient and less expensive so let's have the government run it!

So what if so many people aren't insured? Does the government pay your auto insurance? I hate it when they say people are denied healthcare. No one in the United States is denied healthcare. Emergency rooms are going out of business because they treat everyone, even illegals who can't and won't pay.

Also, towards the end, they had a money orgy about what they'd want to fund. All day national kindergarten? Let's not make the daycare too obvious. I think it's Hillary that wants to go even younger. Let the indoctrination begin! (Gravel, I believe, was the only reasonable one about pointing out all the crazy spending when we don't have money.)

All of these students need teachers. Smaller classes are better. Teachers have to belong to unions. Unions have lobbyists. Connection? Besides, they never worry that many university classes are taught in classes in the hundreds, yet nothing much changes the summer between high school and college.

Furthermore, it may not be nice to say it, but people need to reevaluate college. It's not so necessary. That's why it costs more, demand is increasing! I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but how many people get jobs directly connected to their L&S degrees? From what I hear, after college, L&S people beg for jobs, but companies come to recruit us engineers.

Perhaps then, it's not so much exactly what you learn in college, but that you've had the experience. Maybe if high school were taken seriously, grades were earned and given carefully instead of throwing A's at everyone to make them feel good, then high school degrees would start to have some meaning again.

The Democrats made a point of agreeing too much. I wish they'd take a few Democrats and a few Republicans and put them together on stage. Now, that'd be a debate!

Anyway, I think this would some it up: "It's Bush's fault. Vote Democrat! We'll make everyone both healthier and smarter than average!"

3 comments:

Erik Opsal said...

"There are people out there that want to see us all dead. If they're not attacking our soldiers in the desert, then they'll be attacking our office workers over our cities again."

So are they mailing the talking points to you or emailing them?

Richardson would be a better candidate if he wasn't the governor of (statistically) one of the bottom five states in the country. He bombed his interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press two Sunday's ago.

Gravel is absolutely nuts, like when he says "we should have ended [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] 20 years ago!" I think he should check his facts about those years.

Hillary tried to be forceful against Wolf Blitzer and it worked. Edwards did kind of come off as smarmy, and I think Obama won overall. Biden and Dodd moved up, but the top three stayed at about the same level. I think the format just really screwed things up because no one was allowed to talk! (Also, the frontrunners got wayyyy more time)

That Walter Reed comic is funny, but you forget one thing about this government: It's run by George Bush, a man who is incapable of running anything. (what, was it 3 or 4 businesses he ran into the ground before he became governor of Texas?)

Perhaps if we had some smart people in power who know how to use government effectively (Democrats are the party of government after all), we could get a good health care system going.

Redeploy does not mean retreat, it means redeploy. We can get out because the war's not even about us anymore, it's a civil war that we're caught in the middle of. We stay we're screwed, we leave we're just as screwed. For God sakes! All we want is something different because it just isn't working! Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and almost 3,500 American lives is an epic disaster.

If we put the funds going to Iraq into smart counterintelligence and to ACTUALLY FIGHT TERRORISM, then we maybe we could secure our own country and they won't "be attacking our office workers over cities again."

You had your rant and now I had mine.

Doesn't hold a candle to Ronald Reagan said...

I think this post may be SUMMED up better with the title 'potpourri' rather than as it stands now.

I think the Republican version would've been a debate if they'd have spent less time trying to look like Ronald Reagan: http://youtube.com/watch?v=liXVWd4JvCs

Mike said...

You know that the debate was held at the Regan Library, right? I'm sure if it had been at the Barry Goldwater Terminal, they would have said Goldwater every few minutes. It is a bit annoying, though as they're not running to be elected Reagan. I guess on the bright side, they could have said "9/11" fifty times. Nevermind, that's just Rudy.