OK, OK . . . the Demo Debate

As foretold by one and all, the Las Vegas debate was a snooze-fest. Not much in the way of attacks on Hillary by the boys; it was as if they had all resigned themselves to her winning the nomination.

Brooklyn Bernie Sanders, I must confess, showed some passion when he railed against the millionaires and billionaires. This speech must have sounded fresh and exciting when those talking points first arrived from Moscow at the Communist Party USA HQs in 1932.

Sanders showed his total lack of grasp of the law and national security by giving Hillary a pass-cum-endorsement on the email issue. Bernie, surprisingly, seemed the most moderate on gun control, obviously taking to heart the views of his rural voters in Vermont, but even he repeated the fallacy about closing the non-existent "gun show loophole," and some mumbo-jumbo about guns and mental health. He proved, once again, completely illiterate on economic issues and promised "lots of stuff."

Governor Martin O'Malley? He had a hard time getting past his tiresome attacks on the NRA (America's oldest civil rights organization) and seemed to blame the NRA for all the problems in his old stomping ground of Baltimore (more on this below). He recited the tired line about Bush leading us into war in Iraq with bogus intelligence . . . yawn.

Lincoln Chafee? Gee, I didn't even know he was still around. The former Republican, former Independent, former mayor, former senator, and former governor did not deliver--as the media had speculated he would--major attacks on the front runners and seemed eager only to redo the 2004 election by harping on the invasion of Iraq. He seems gleefully stuck in the recent past.

Former Senator, former Secretary of the Navy, and USMC combat veteran Jim Webb, frankly, seemed the only decent fellow on the stage. I met him many years ago and he struck me then as an honorable and patriotic man, in other words as somebody who does not belong in today's Democratic party. Webb was the only one who seemed to have a grasp of foreign policy and of the need for a US presence in the world. He also was the only one to mention protecting our borders. He did not get to say much, and on stage looked very much like a startled friend of mine did some thirty years ago when we accidentally wandered into a gay bar in Washington DC: his face broadcast the plaintive plea, "How do I get out of here?"

All were weak on immigration to say the least and even Webb signed off on granting illegals access to free medical care. All fumbled around with the "Black Lives Matter" meme and just could not declare it the nonsense that it is. O' Malley was notably hideous on the issue by talking about how over 300 young black men were killed in Baltimore every year that he was mayor and how different public reaction would have been if the dead had been white. Yes, Mr. Mayor, that's the point. They were not white. O'Malley, of course, skipped the unpleasant and Progressive-narrative-destroying fact that these dead did not result either from police actions or those of evil NRA-backed, gun-totting white Southerners. Almost to a man they were killed by other young black men. As I have noted many times (here, here, and here for example) murder in America, including by firearms, is largely a phenomenon within Democratic constituencies.

Economic policies? A disaster. Sanders openly declared himself a socialist who favored entrepreneurs--apparently unless they become successful, note to Bernie, there would have been no Wynn casino or Las Vegas if we had followed your policies. They all--Webb, I don't know--seemed to support much higher taxes and spending as the way to fix the mess made by high taxes and spending. Clinton, talked about giving everybody the opportunities she had had--I guess to be a bribe launderer in Arkansas, run a crooked "foundation," etc.?

Who won?

My answer to that tiresome question is . . . Hillary Clinton. I say that because her mastery at lying and gliding over inconvenient facts could win over the low-information voters who form the Democratic core constituency. She, for example, flat out lied when she said her private email server use was allowed by the State Department, but did it quite well.  I suspect, however, many pundits will declare Sanders the winner because of his "passion" and his "telling truth to power" style of rabble rousing. I refer them to CPUSA circa 1932 (see above).

I find it hard to believe that any sentient, working being, with a moderate level of information at his or her disposal and with any degree of love for our country could possibly support these candidates (pace Webb) who range from lame to outright lunatic and dangerous. Frankly put, you have to be an idiot or a "free stuff addict" to support these people.  Just wondering . . .