I watched the first couple of Dems debates, then skipped most of them – too busy with work and stuff – then tuned in last night for the ABC/Facebook double-feature. Brief thoughts:
The GOP debate was surreal. A bunch of Grumpy Old White Men spewing nonsense and nobody called them on it (the same conversation could easily have occurred at a neighborhood bar or at a strip-club and would not seem out of place). McCain and Thompson looked like the two old geezers sitting on the balcony on the Muppet Show set, and were just as coherent.
Romney was like a deer in the headlights, insulted that someone may challenge his complete lack of idea what he’s doing. Big Pharma are good guys, trying to make medicines for all of us?! Sure, the scientists working there – the employees – may have lofty motivations, but their bosses are just in it for profit with approximately zero concern for the sick people of the world. And 47 million Americans refuse to buy health insurance?! Sure, I refuse it, too, when the monthly bill is more than a grand and my bank account is in the red. Is everyone earning less than a million per minute prohibited from ever being seen by Romney?
To say that these guys are out of touch is putting it too nicely. They just dropped from Tralfamador and the first hour of their English lesson was taped and put on TV for all to see. If the Saturday Night Live crew memorizes the transcript with no alterations and performs the skit, it would be just as loony and funny as the debate itself.
What we saw was the last remnants of the Republican party. Normal people who, for reasons of personal or family history, voted Republican for many years, are leaving the party in droves because there is nothing there for anyone but the professional GOP operatives, the uber-rich and the religious nutcases. What is left was on TV last night and is absolutely pathetic. They need to go back to the drawing board and redesign the party from scratch if they want to remain a viable party in the future. They are still attacking strawman ideas that Dems left behind 60-80 years ago – because they cannot attack what the Democrats are standing for today.
The one that worries me is Huckabee. On a very charitable day I vehemently disagree with the guy 99.9%. But, unlike the others, he knows how to talk, he is a great debater, he is comfortable, confident and likable and, if you are not aware that definitions of all the words he uses are not the definitions found in Websters or Oxford Dictionary but only in religious literature, you may fall for his rhetoric – and many low-information voters may do just that. He is the only Repub I am afraid of for the general and I hope that the GOP machine and the GOP-loving media will derail his candidacy soon because a prospect of his Presidency is scary.
Now to the Dems debate. Made me very proud to be a Democrat. The contrast was stark. On its own, the GOP debate was something out of a Bunjuel movie, but when placed in direct juxtaposition with the Democratic debate, it was an absolute disaster, a nightmare.
The big loser was ABC. The first question made a false assumption that a nuclear device is as small as something that can fit in a suitcase. The second question made the false assumption that Social Security is in danger. The third question made the false assumption that the “surge” in Iraq is working. not just that all three were false statements, but they are also all three important Republican talking points, and the part-and-parcel of Republican strategy of inducing fear in voters. And when Gibson showed his out-of-touchness by claiming that “a couple of professors, each earning over $100,000” he was laughed at by all four candidates and the audience. In what world does he live in? Oh, D.C. Explains it all.
Earlier in the season, when Dems debates featured eight candidates, Richardson was helped by the presence of Gravel and Kucinich. Next to them he appeared serious and reasonable. Last night, as personally likable he may be, he was clearly outclassed by the Three Stars. He has every right to keep trucking through the primaries, but he is not adding much to the debates and has no chance of doing well anywhere, so his funding is bound to dry up sooner or later and he’ll be forced to quit, having made himself visible and well-known and in a good position to be invited for a high spot in the next Administration.
The other three were really all good. I disagree with Clinton on many things and do not believe that her presidency would be capable of rolling back all the disastrous changes that Bush years produced, but I like her, always did. What she can accomplish is still light-years ahead of anything a GOP president can do. I am still worried about her electoral chances, though.
I like Obama, really do, always did. I am still not bought on his strategy, that it would work (though a part of it – campaigning, not governing part – worked in Iowa caucuses), but I can give him a benefit of the doubt. If he is the nominee I would gladly support him all the way.
And of course, I am an unabashed supporter of Edwards. The chattering classes cannot imagine that what he says is what he really means. But he is my neighbor. I met him several times. In bookstores. At the gas station pumping gas. I know he is genuine, the real deal. What you see is what you get. And I have already explained several times why I think his strategy (more for governing than for winning the election in the first place) is the right strategy for the country.
There is change and there is change.
Rearranging the furniture is change. Clinton would do that.
Burning the furniture and the house down is change. Republicans are already doing this.
Getting creative and building new furniture is also change. Obama and Edwards would do that – the difference being that Edwards would kick the Republican pyromaniacs out of the house first so they cannot keep ruining the creative process.
And as I alluded to yesterday, there is a parallel I see between the discussion of relative merits of Obama’s vs. Edwards’ strategy and the discussion between “appeasers” and “angry atheists”. The strategy of learning how to speak their language, being nice and gentle, and slowly helping them climb over the Wall to the sunny side is something that works on the ground, one-on-one or in small groups, away from the intruding eyes of cameras. The strategy of proclaiming loudly and strongly that BS is BS and that the alternative is the rational way to go moves the Overton Window in the right direction. The two strategies complement each other – the loud one determines what can be mentioned in public, the soft one moves people towards that view. The soft approach prepares individual people to accept and even rally for the lolud view.
You see where I am going with this, don’t you? We need BOTH strategies simultaneously. When we take the White House, there has to be one person in the limelight (the President) who talks to the people every day with passion. There also has to be the other person (the Vice-President) who stays away from the cameras and uses his talent to move people over one at the time, both in DC and in constant travels around the country talking to ordinary people. You know who is who so fill in the names yourself.
There are 14 days until the Science Blogging Conference. We have 220 registered participants and the registration is now closed.
A Blog Around The Clock 