Saturday, June 29, 2019

And Then There Were...Twenty?

Friends, as is my duty as part of the conservative commentariat, I watched every minute of the Democratic primary debates.  I found the experience very educational, and I will share some of my thoughts with you today.

First, I was struck by the fact that not a single Democrat expressed any concern at the scale of illegal immigration currently taking place, with the abuse of our asylum laws, or with the fact that poor people are now coming not just from Central America, but from all over the world, to worm their way into this country.  The Dems were overwhelmingly concerned not to stop illegal immigration, but to facilitate it and to make the illegals feel more welcome.  They all pledged to give illegal immigrants free health care.  This Democratic acceptance (I won't say "advocacy", because the Left is a little more subtle than that) of open borders could be a hugely important wedge issue that could drive moderates and independents towards Trump in 2020.  Of course, there's also socialism, abortion-on-demand, climate extremism, reparations fantasies, and a host of other issues on which the Democrats have become downright scary.

I was also struck by the field's seeming lack of interest in President Trump, who one might think would dominate the debate, and in impeachment.  In the general election, it might well be smart for the Democratic candidate to take the high road and let the media do the job of trashing the President.  At this stage, though, it strikes me as odd that more candidates aren't tearing into Trump, who the vast majority of Democratic primary voters believe is a thousand times worse than Hitler.  So much the better, though, because the more they attack each other instead of Trump, the better our chances will be in 2020.

Now, as for Biden, I wasn't impressed by his performance.  Of all the twenty Democrats on stage over two nights, he was the least articulate.  He seemed old and somewhat overwhelmed.  He was subjected to attacks on his civil rights record that I would regard as silly, and to his credit he defended his record and didn't apologize.  He also wrapped himself in the flag of Obama-ism, which given the nature of his party is probably a smart move.  To me, he looks like a fading prospect, but I don't believe he'll fade quickly.

Elizabeth Warren was angry and passionate, but I didn't see any sign of her legendary intelligence and total grasp of intricate policy details.  Of course, there was no time for her to do anything other than deliver sound bytes, and she did so.  She appears to have done herself no harm, but she didn't make a strong impression either, especially towards the end of the debate, when she faded into insignificance.

Cory Booker and Julian Castro put in strong performances, but I doubt very much that it will matter, because neither candidate is likely to prosper in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I don't believe that a candidate who is blown out of the water in those two early states can recover later on.

Pete Buttigieg performed well.  It was the first time I had ever seen him speak, and I can understand why people believe he is so articulate and bright.  Having said that, he doesn't have the heft to become the Democratic nominee, in my estimation.  He's a sideshow who will be, at best, the V.P.

Sanders was Sanders.  I personally find his endless tirades against big corporations tiresome, but since most of the Democrats on stage were repeating his talking points and seem to buy into the idea that the average American is groaning under capitalist oppression, perhaps he's on to something, in that bizarre alternate reality that we call the Democratic Party.  I have never believed that Sanders would be the nominee, and I don't now.  He has staying power, though, and he might just gum up the progressive works long enough for a non-progressive, like Biden or someone else, to become the nominee.  Warren needs him gone, but he's not going anywhere soon.

Kamala Harris was a firecracker, sure, but her aggression against Biden was a factor of her desperation.  Her standing in the polls is nowhere close to where it needs to be.  I don't count her out, but generally speaking the first candidate to target the frontrunner isn't the long-term beneficiary of those attacks.  She may help to destroy Biden, but I doubt that she will save herself in the process.  She also seems ill-suited to Iowa and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of also-rans, but most of them haven't a prayer.  I say "most," because I don't discount the possibility that, if Biden craters, some new moderate will emerge as a real contender.  Someone like Hickenlooper, or Bennet, or Bullock, might be able to swing it, or maybe even Klobuchar.  At least there are a few Democrats who realize that abolishing private medical insurance is a political no-hoper, and that "socialism" isn't the bees' knees.  The party seems paralyzed on the issue of illegal immigration, but on other issues moderation is not a totally dead letter.  It will be interesting to see the battle for the soul of the party play out, especially as the stakes become higher, and the attacks become more vicious!

Those are my thoughts for now.  We'll keep an eye on those Dems, won't we?  Take note that President Trump's approval rating is creeping upward, and as long as the media is focused on the civil war in the Democratic Party, expect that to continue.


  1. Dr. Waddy: the Democrat party is a direct threat to freedom and prosperity in America and I remain hopeful, as I trust you do, that the real America will rally against this.

  2. I agree Jack and quite honestly Dr. Waddy, I can't think of anything to comment about as I quite agree. However, please allow me a thought...I watched both debates and I am still smarting over the comment about Trans reproduction rights. I think I ought to retake Biology (being funny). The audacity of these candidates- No turning back for those candidates, no matter how much they flip flop.

  3. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Two points I got from the accounts of the debates (I simply didn't have the stomach to listen to Dems pontificating and I admit that is to my objective and expository disadvantage): First: the illegality, their defiance of duly established LAW, of the illegals (no, I do not expect a refugee from rural Honduras to understand U.S. law or,to have any experience of democratically produced laws, though they probably do share a general perception that U.S. law enforcement officials are to be avoided), is of no moment to the leftists now dominating the Dem party.And that confirms their contempt for the rule of law and processes which produced it, when it contradicts their intentions. They've said it out loud on T.V., "fuh crine out loud!" What does that say about their regard or disregard for all of our laws and our lawmaking process? Consequently, how would they treat our Constitution and its resultant statutory and judicial law in any setting? As antediluvian clay only; to be molded by them in forms dictated by them and then to be displayed in dusty museums as detested anachronisms.

    The second point I perceived from the very numbers of lala land prospectives is that the vast majority of the Dem party has submitted to the socialist takeover of their party. I am glad of this, since it presents us with as stark a choice as we have ever faced. I know this has been urged before but as the at the time unending succession of Civil War battles in 1864 demonstrated, we must HOLD TRUE, through enervating doubt, through staggering opposition (eg today from the so very alluring MSM) and through debilitating political carnage (eg Speaker NancyPelosi).

  4. Dr. Waddy and Linda: With the last two Presidents being among the most astonishing and unforeseen, its hard to rule out some of the now marginal prospects. But I suppose just when we think all the rules are off, they may kick back in and the Dem nominee would turn out to be. . . Hubert Humphrey! Have the crazies really taken over the Dem party? It may actually have happened; maybe we really are going to have a declared and open NeoMarxist as one of the major party candidates. Could one of them actually be elected? It is not beyond imagination, given the unpredicted results of recent elections. The real America remains the essence and the core of America in its proven values and in its conviction that this nation is fundamentally sound, not unjust to its very heart, as the left so conveniently presumes.No matter who reigns in Washington, that truth obtains. Better that it be served at the apex of power by one who embraces it, as it is now, than one who regards it as a bug ridden bog, to be ignored or patronized at best and against which the forceful enactment of laws inimical to its cherished and proven convictions is justified. Its up to us in the real America; if we stand we prevail.

  5. Linda, I too was bewildered by the demand for abortion rights for "trans" females. There must have been some major advances in sex reassignment surgery that I didn't hear about!

    Jack, yes -- the Democratic Party's abandonment of border security and the rule of law in immigration is astounding. Granted, they don't so much advocate open borders as much as they criticize ALL enforcement of immigration restrictions...but doesn't that amount to the same thing? As for socialism, it depends on your definition. It seems to me that most Dems still reject the label. On the other hand, their embrace of capitalism is lukewarm AT BEST, and the number of new programs they wish to create suggests a massive expansion of government more or less unparalleled in our history. Sounds like socialism to me.

    I have to concur that, as nutty as the Dems have become, their candidate, even if it's Bernie or Warren, will have a good chance of being elected. We will have to gird ourselves, as you say, and we will have to "go negative" in spades!