If last night's debate proved anything, it's that the Dems, for all their reputation for internal squabbling, are not the party close to chaotic dysfunction one sees in the GOP. Five candidates rather than more than a dozen? that's just a sign of, ahem, democracy at work. Actual disagreements among the candidates? none half so vehement as the perpetual disagreement between the Dem candidates and Anderson Cooper, unabashedly hostile and partisan, whose mother needs to wash his mouth out (and possibly his brain) with soap. But for the first time in ages, I could call myself a Democrat and not wince at the thought: they all sounded like Democrats, if you put aside for a moment all thoughts of who may own some of their political souls.The online post-debate post most worth reading: Ed Kilgore's Last Night's Debate: Democrats Vs. CNN... no f^<king kidding, Ed!
A thought: CNN lived up to its nickname, Conservative News Network, and did so even in the face of the most right-leaning Democratic Party in my lifetime. Do Dems really need CNN in future elections, badly enough to put up with the "Fox Jr. Reporter" kits their staff seem all to have requested from Santa for Christmas? The entire Democratic field handled those offensive throwbacks almost flawlessly, but isn't there another major network that could have conducted the debate without flinging so much sh!t at the candidates?
Another thought: more than ever, I believe America needs Bernie. And more than ever, I feel that's not gonna happen. It's a hard road being old; it makes one less presentable in so many ways. Hillary isn't all that old (67, same as me, actually nearly a year older), but she doesn't come across that way when she speaks in public; Bernie is 74 but seems committed (as am I) to looking the stereotypical progressive in his public appearance. Will the public accept that? If they can ignore that, will they accept his intellectual-socialist manner of speaking? I just don't know. I'm hoping for Bernie but acclimating myself to backing Hillary. Hey, it's not the first time!
They presented themselves in a dignified, intelligent, and respectful manner. As versus the GOP candidates, who spend all their time attacking each other or throwing tantrums like toddlers. They were grownups. Will the American voters vote for grownups? I dunno, but I know I will. I'll vote for Bernie in the primary (not that it matters, by the time California holds its primary the nominee is pretty much chosen), but if Hillary wins, well. She certainly comes off better than any of the GOP clown car denizens.
ReplyDelete"[A] dignified, intelligent, and respectful manner..." I couldn't have said it better, 'Tux; that's exactly the minimum requirement we all expect of a president of whatever political stripe. Something more than half the presidents in my lifetime have been Republican. I did not vote for them, but in those cases when the elections were fair and the GOP was not yet a bunch of raving maniacs, each of them was my president, D or R after his name, and I hoped for his success because I passionately hoped for America's wellbeing. From about Nixon forward, Republican presidential administrations have displayed no such mutuality, no compromise for the good of the nation... and my own conciliatory approach has gradually vanished as I have been repeatedly whacked with one or another two-by-four in the interest of some damned GOP politician. It doesn't have to be that way, as presidents from FDR through Ike proved... partisanship meant competing better in the marketplace of ideas, not destroying the opposition. Now we have no such luxury as winning by fair competition in that marketplace, and I'm not sure we can go any other place we really want to be without every American citizen's at least trying to win in that way.
DeleteI am not optimistic...
A civilized debate! What a concept!
ReplyDeletec, I heard very little that I found offensive that evening, except from the damned CNN moderators, who seemed as eager as Donald Trump to score conservative points. IIRC, you are not quite old enough to have seen the very first televised presidential debate, which was between Kennedy and Nixon. It wasn't so much that Kennedy won the 1960 debate and subsequently the election, but that he understood what was required of him on TV... and Nixon did not. The mother of one of my classmates, the driver of our neighborhood carpool, was utterly wowed by Kennedy's personal magnetism, charm, sincerity, etc. It wasn't his looks but his ability to convey a presidential demeanor that sold her on voting for him. Were the debates "civilized" back then? well, yes, but it is (ahem) debatable whether that accounts for their overwhelming role in handing Kennedy the White House. Now all politicians of both major parties are at least aware of the phenomenon, so why do Republicans make such utter hash of it, knowing what the consequences are liable to be? Are they that confident they can steal any damned election, and thus are not obligated to convince the electorate of their candidates' virtues? Damned if I know!
DeleteSteve, I can't imagine what the gop is thinking. Although I generally disagree with them, they do have intelligent, thoughtful people among their ranks. Where are these people when it comes to choosing presidential candidates?
Deletec, I am curious what Andrew Bacevich is saying about all this... if indeed he is not hiding his face. He is an unashamedly conservative Republican who occasionally appears on Bill Moyers... they're political opposites but both bright stars IMHO... and Bacevich has been intolerant of BS on several occasions I can remember. I've never seen such deep steaming piles of BS from a major party as the GOP has issued in the past decade or more; Bacevich may have much to be intolerant of.
Delete