Watching the debate would not have helped my mental health
I have been trying to avoid the election as much as possible, and while I was doing other things, it's probably just as well that I spared myself the agony of watching the Democratic debate last night.
Seriously, why should I watch? Did I have any duty? I'm no good at "live blogging" things, so it's just as well to leave that to those who are really good at it, like Stephen Green and Ann Althouse. They did a better job of watching the debate than I could. So much better, in fact, that reading their reactions gives me a better idea of what was going on than writing my reactions would have. Seeing them confirm two of my primary suspicions made me feel that I really didn't miss anything.
this is the precise point in the debate where I conclude -- I'd been toying with the conclusion -- that Clinton is the superior candidate.
Which is another way of recognizing the simple reality that she will WIN. (I've seen it coming for years, and right now she's doing so well that she doesn't need to drag in Bill, whose visibility is, IMO, a barometer of Hillary's perceived performance with the voters.)
Notwithstanding my problems with the Republican Party, there is no way I could vote for Hillary Clinton. Nor could I vote for any candidate who believes in the following:
That this has become the mainstream position of the Democratic Party is too obvious to require extended discussion. I think pulling out in such a way that it emboldens powerful enemies who are poised to take over Iraq is dangerous and irresponsible. The idea that the US should pull out of Iraq because it was wrong to go in is not only illogical, but in light of the Democrats' former statements, it is supremely hypocritical.
MULTICULTURALISM AND IDENTITY POLITICS
A simple and recent illustration of how utterly destructive and insane this has become, look no further than the Democrats' deliberate killing of legislation which might have protected people from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior by possible terrorists. (Fausta Wertz has a good post on the subject.)
If what had happened to me in September of 2001 happened now, I think I'd be sued. What the Democrats did was beyond scummy; it was truly despicable. Identity politics always is. (I believe it is an evil, loathsome virus of the human mind.)
Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.
No wonder Hillary is trying to distance herself publicly from Michael Moore -- with a little help from CNN, of course. (I don't think Moore will be welcome at the DNC, at least, not publicly. He might remind people of Hillary's 1993 Health Care Plan from Hell. AKA "The Health care plan that dare not speak its name.")
IMPOSING VAST NEW CONTROLS OVER THE ECONOMY IN THE NAME OF "THE ENVIRONMENT"
Um, anthropogenic global warming alarmism? (Ugh, not that again!) Nothing like putting environmentalists in charge of the ecomony. What I think Hillary would do is let Al Gore continue to catch the flak for her, then create a new Cabinet level "climate change" position for him. (While the GOP isn't much better, they are nice enough to at least tolerate dissenters.)
GUN CONTROL
No, the Democrats will never, ever, ever, stop with that -- even if they have to break the gunlaws in order to pimp for more. That's because gun control has long been one of their crown jewels. (Hillary has long worn hers publicly and proudly.)
Like it or not, the above things are all bread-and-butter issues of the Democratic Party. I disagree on every damned one of them, and I think they are all major issues of vital importance which dwarf the rest. True, many Republicans suck on pork, many suck on individual liberty and lifestyle politics, and many are only half opposed to socialism. Many people get hung up on lifestyle issues and religion, but the GOP is not monolithic about lifestyle politics. Besides, such personal issues are not within the scope and power of the federal government. Much as I disagree with them, I'd hold my nose and vote for a sexual moralist who lacks real power to impose his morality over an environmentalist socialist gun grabber with the power to impose his.
In short, the things I most hate about a minority of Republicans, they can't do.
The things I most hate about the majority of Democrats, they can and will do.
This situation is unlikely to change, and the election is still more than a year away.
(Probably a good reason not to watch the debates, and instead have my fear and loathing done for me vicariously. Nothing wrong with a little emotional outsourcing!)
posted by Eric on 07.24.07 at 02:56 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5299
Comments
I'm trying to understand how the position of fiscal conservatism can coincide with social liberalism. As it stands today the entitlement budget is $1 trillion 360 billion per year, a budget which has been mostly created and supported over the past five decades by social liberal policies. Ironically, as indicated by following the money trail, GWB is much the same social liberal as was JKF.
Personally I see the divide not between Democrat or Republican but between Collectivism and Individualism.
As indicated by both parties through politicans like Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg, Clinton and GWB who would like to garner the Centrist vote, it is realistic to both govern as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal?
Seems to me at the end of the day, if given the chance, people are going to want their free government goodies so how will the Centrist position of Fiscal Conservativism/Social Liberalism be able to downsized an ever expanding Big Government power?
I also have to wonder why a Democrat President whose party represents the platform of gay marriage signed a Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman'.
Do you think perhaps the Black Caucus within the Democrat Party may have something to do with the fact that a Democrat president rejected gay marriage? And if this is the case, why then does the Democrat Party continue to use gay marriage as a political platform by blaming those religious people for being homophobes when it was a Democrat President who rejected gay marriage by signing The Defense of Marriage Act?
syn · July 24, 2007 03:31 PM
I find it nuts that anyone would consider rewarding the Democratic Party's reprehensible behavior since 2000 with a vote.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I'm trying to understand how the position of fiscal conservatism can coincide with social liberalism. As it stands today the entitlement budget is $1 trillion 360 billion per year, a budget which has been mostly created and supported over the past five decades by social liberal policies. Ironically, as indicated by following the money trail, GWB is much the same social liberal as was JKF.
Personally I see the divide not between Democrat or Republican but between Collectivism and Individualism.
As indicated by both parties through politicans like Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg, Clinton and GWB who would like to garner the Centrist vote, it is realistic to both govern as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal?
Seems to me at the end of the day, if given the chance, people are going to want their free government goodies so how will the Centrist position of Fiscal Conservativism/Social Liberalism be able to downsized an ever expanding Big Government power?
I also have to wonder why a Democrat President whose party represents the platform of gay marriage signed a Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman'.
Do you think perhaps the Black Caucus within the Democrat Party may have something to do with the fact that a Democrat president rejected gay marriage? And if this is the case, why then does the Democrat Party continue to use gay marriage as a political platform by blaming those religious people for being homophobes when it was a Democrat President who rejected gay marriage by signing The Defense of Marriage Act?