My favorite moment in the debate came when Carson, in his closing statement, used a made-up quote from Stalin, Carson claiming that Stalin said all one needed to do to overthrow America is undermine its spirituality, morality and patriotism. Carson seemed to be suggesting that if you don't agree with him on the issues you must be some kind of communist. One wonders how many listeners to the debate were even sure who Stalin was.
Could it be that there are too many debates? Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Trump spent most of their time sniping at each other and calling each other liars, even though they all agree on lower taxes, repealing Obamacare, building a big wall to keep out immigrants, bombing ISIS back to the stone age and delaying the appointment of a Supreme Court justice until they can appoint one who will rule against abortion. Kasich tried to rise above the fray and urged a "consensus" while Carson stayed out of it, in his own world as usual.
Lowlights included:
Carson said the government was evil, not the rich people.
Trump said Cruz was "the biggest liar."
Everyone said how great Ronald Reagan was and how they were more like him than the other candidates.
Bush wants to "replace Obamacare" but had no suggestions as to how or with what.
Rubio referred to "me and my family" and wants to give parents tax credits, as long as the parents are "one man and one woman."
Trump said, a number of times, "we have to take care of our people" without defining to whom he was referring and said he could easily improve Social Security by getting rid of "waste. fraud and abuse."
In this debate Kasich seemed the one relatively reasonable and rational person, even being able to accept that the government could have a role in helping those who had no health insurance. He also pointed out the role that the West had in causing some of the problems in the Middle East by the way in which the area was divided up after World War I.
Once again unions were not mentioned, with the solutions for helping the middle class including getting rid of regulations (again, no specifics were mentioned) and bringing back jobs from China and Mexico, though no one made it very clear how one could accomplish this.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
Demoratic Debate Feb. 11, 2016
I think Sanders was right, that Clinton dealt him some low blows. One was by saying that Sanders should not criticize Obama; why not, is there anyone who doesn't believe that Obama has been something of "a disappointment?" The other was by saying that the numbers for single-payer healthcare "don't add up," though she did not say why in any detail, presumably, at least in part, because of the large donations she gets from health insurance companies, who make their profits by charging high deductibles and co-payments and by denying service. Clinton seems more concerned about a "contentious debate" than she does about health insurance for the twenty-nine million Americans who still lack it. Both candidates were somewhat short on specifics, talking broadly about education, housing and jobs. Sanders at least had the intelligent suggestions of rebuilding the infrastructure for employment and tuition-free state colleges for education, in these days when a college education today is the equivalent of a high school education fifty years ago (we'll discuss that interesting subject another time).
On foreign policy Clinton criticized Sanders for not having advisers, while she makes use of the same old guys -- including Henry Kissinger! -- who have caused so much trouble and made so many bad decisions in the past. Sanders accurately described how the current situations in Iran, Iraq and Libya came about because we concentrated on overthrowing dictators and didn't pay attention to what might come next.
While Sanders made an important point on incarceration -- the necessity of employment to avoid recidivism -- Clinton did make a passing reference to unions and organizing, acknowledging that they were debating in Wisconsin, where the union-busting Scott Walker is governor. Clinton also questioned whether we could have tuition-free college in states where government is hostile to it. Clinton can always find reasons why some things are not "practical" as she defers constantly to authorities and experts. At one point she criticized Sanders for not voting for the 2007 immigration bill since, after all, "that was Ted Kennedy's bill." Sanders pointed out that that was not a reason to vote for a bill that did not have a clearly designed path to citizenship.
On foreign policy Clinton criticized Sanders for not having advisers, while she makes use of the same old guys -- including Henry Kissinger! -- who have caused so much trouble and made so many bad decisions in the past. Sanders accurately described how the current situations in Iran, Iraq and Libya came about because we concentrated on overthrowing dictators and didn't pay attention to what might come next.
While Sanders made an important point on incarceration -- the necessity of employment to avoid recidivism -- Clinton did make a passing reference to unions and organizing, acknowledging that they were debating in Wisconsin, where the union-busting Scott Walker is governor. Clinton also questioned whether we could have tuition-free college in states where government is hostile to it. Clinton can always find reasons why some things are not "practical" as she defers constantly to authorities and experts. At one point she criticized Sanders for not voting for the 2007 immigration bill since, after all, "that was Ted Kennedy's bill." Sanders pointed out that that was not a reason to vote for a bill that did not have a clearly designed path to citizenship.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Republican Debate Feb. 6, 2016
The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over.
--Paul Krugman, NY Times, Feb. 8, 2016
Just when one thinks that the Republicans can't sink lower, they do. In this particular debate Chris Christie and Donald Trump played bullies, Rubio, Bush and the sleepy Carson were bullied, and Kasich tried to have everyone get along, even if it meant sometimes getting along with Democrats in order to accomplish something (what a concept!). To a certain extent I felt sorry for Rubio, as he was bullied and taunted by Christie. On the other hand, what Rubio kept saying made no sense, criticizing Obama because Obama "wants us to be like other countries." And what other countries does Rubio not want to be like, the ones that have single-payer healthcare, extensive parental leave, subsidized daycare, decent unemployment insurance? He and the other candidates want us to be America, which takes no crap from anyone, where if one is poor it's one's own fault, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer and rugged individualism reigns. Trump, however, thinks the problem is that Obama doesn't know what he is doing (the debaters were divided on this).
The conceptual difficulty with the Republican debates is that there is no debating going on: everyone is opposed to abortion (some would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest) but no one plans to do anything about it; if they even dared to mention making Supreme Court appointments that would change Roe v. Wade they know it would not help their election; everyone is opposed to Obamacare but offers little or nothing to replace it (Cruz's suggestions are risible and Carson's are incomprehensible); everyone wants to build a wall to keep out both immigrants and drugs (the competition seems to be about how big the wall will be and how to pay for it); everyone wants a bigger military than the next guy, though none of the candidates ever served in the military (Rubio bragged that his brother had!)
Christie did have at least one genuine accomplishment to brag about, other than having been a federal prosecutor, and that was putting first-time, non-violent drug offenders in rehab instead of jail. Otherwise the governors bragged about how much they lowered taxes and how many jobs had been created during their terms. Once again the only mention of unions, which had once been instrumental in increasing wages, was Chris Christie bragging about how he had busted the teachers' union. Cruz started using the term "socialized medicine" once again, apparently to scare people, and said (without presenting any evidence) that it didn't work. Most of the candidates, though, seemed to support socialized medicine for veterans and no Republican has criticized socialized medicine for senior citizens.
--Paul Krugman, NY Times, Feb. 8, 2016
Just when one thinks that the Republicans can't sink lower, they do. In this particular debate Chris Christie and Donald Trump played bullies, Rubio, Bush and the sleepy Carson were bullied, and Kasich tried to have everyone get along, even if it meant sometimes getting along with Democrats in order to accomplish something (what a concept!). To a certain extent I felt sorry for Rubio, as he was bullied and taunted by Christie. On the other hand, what Rubio kept saying made no sense, criticizing Obama because Obama "wants us to be like other countries." And what other countries does Rubio not want to be like, the ones that have single-payer healthcare, extensive parental leave, subsidized daycare, decent unemployment insurance? He and the other candidates want us to be America, which takes no crap from anyone, where if one is poor it's one's own fault, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer and rugged individualism reigns. Trump, however, thinks the problem is that Obama doesn't know what he is doing (the debaters were divided on this).
The conceptual difficulty with the Republican debates is that there is no debating going on: everyone is opposed to abortion (some would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest) but no one plans to do anything about it; if they even dared to mention making Supreme Court appointments that would change Roe v. Wade they know it would not help their election; everyone is opposed to Obamacare but offers little or nothing to replace it (Cruz's suggestions are risible and Carson's are incomprehensible); everyone wants to build a wall to keep out both immigrants and drugs (the competition seems to be about how big the wall will be and how to pay for it); everyone wants a bigger military than the next guy, though none of the candidates ever served in the military (Rubio bragged that his brother had!)
Christie did have at least one genuine accomplishment to brag about, other than having been a federal prosecutor, and that was putting first-time, non-violent drug offenders in rehab instead of jail. Otherwise the governors bragged about how much they lowered taxes and how many jobs had been created during their terms. Once again the only mention of unions, which had once been instrumental in increasing wages, was Chris Christie bragging about how he had busted the teachers' union. Cruz started using the term "socialized medicine" once again, apparently to scare people, and said (without presenting any evidence) that it didn't work. Most of the candidates, though, seemed to support socialized medicine for veterans and no Republican has criticized socialized medicine for senior citizens.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Democratic Debate Feb. 4, 2016
Nothing much new was said in the most recent Democratic debate; not even the absence of the courtly Martin O'Malley was mentioned.
Sanders is still in favor of single-payer healthcare and free tuition for state colleges. Clinton is opposed to the first because it is too expensive and the second because she "doesn't want to pay tuition for Donald Trump's kids." Healthcare is a right and healthcare insurance is a conflict of interest: the more insurance claims denied the more the insurance profit. It is unlikely that Trump's kids would go to a state college but should high schools not be free because a millionaire's children can go there?
Clinton got upset because Sanders questioned her contributions from Wall Street, apparently forgetting a previous debate when she defended Wall Street because Wall Street was in New York and she was a Senator once from New York! Is it unreasonable for Sanders and others to think that Clinton and others might --even unconsciously -- be influenced by those who make large contributions? Clinton even said at one point, apparently without irony, that "these guys make good investments."
Clinton is in favor of capital punishment, at least in some cases. Sanders says, "there is too much violence in the world and no government should be involved in killing."
On foreign policy both candidates are opposed to ground troops in the Middle East and in favor of coalitions. It was interesting to see that Sanders was questioned about not having any distinguished foreign policy advisers while Clinton continually deferred to (usually unnamed)experts about her policies.
Clinton has changed her mind on trade agreements in several cases; it is unclear where she now stands on the issue. Sanders is in favor of "fair trade" that keeps, as much as possible, Americans from having to compete with low-paid foreign workers.
Both candidates want to combat the increasing economic inequality but I was once again disappointed that neither candidate discussed unions and what could be done to strengthen them.
Sanders is still in favor of single-payer healthcare and free tuition for state colleges. Clinton is opposed to the first because it is too expensive and the second because she "doesn't want to pay tuition for Donald Trump's kids." Healthcare is a right and healthcare insurance is a conflict of interest: the more insurance claims denied the more the insurance profit. It is unlikely that Trump's kids would go to a state college but should high schools not be free because a millionaire's children can go there?
Clinton got upset because Sanders questioned her contributions from Wall Street, apparently forgetting a previous debate when she defended Wall Street because Wall Street was in New York and she was a Senator once from New York! Is it unreasonable for Sanders and others to think that Clinton and others might --even unconsciously -- be influenced by those who make large contributions? Clinton even said at one point, apparently without irony, that "these guys make good investments."
Clinton is in favor of capital punishment, at least in some cases. Sanders says, "there is too much violence in the world and no government should be involved in killing."
On foreign policy both candidates are opposed to ground troops in the Middle East and in favor of coalitions. It was interesting to see that Sanders was questioned about not having any distinguished foreign policy advisers while Clinton continually deferred to (usually unnamed)experts about her policies.
Clinton has changed her mind on trade agreements in several cases; it is unclear where she now stands on the issue. Sanders is in favor of "fair trade" that keeps, as much as possible, Americans from having to compete with low-paid foreign workers.
Both candidates want to combat the increasing economic inequality but I was once again disappointed that neither candidate discussed unions and what could be done to strengthen them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)