On the debate between the Vice Presidential candidates

I didn't stay up for the whole debate on Tuesday, October 1--I just don't like seeing the moderators make themselves part of the story. Not as bad as ABC, but CBS, you should be embarrassed.

JD Vance was Mr. Smooth--kind, deliberate, thoughtful, incisive, and super prepared to bring the story back to Harris, the economy and the border, and why isn't she doing something NOW. The media have done a bang-up job of demonizing and lying about Vance, so people must have been stunned to see a smart, civil, talented, articulate and compassionate family man. Vice Presidents don't win elections, but they can soften or puff up the image. I don't know that I could've voted for McCain if Palin hadn't made him tolerable. The media tried to ruin her too; it's just what they do. They see themselves as commissioned to get Democrats into office.

Of course, the stars didn't align for Tim Walz. The news that came out yesterday that he lied about Tiananmen Square, that Iraq was bombing Israel, and the Biden/Harris team had done nothing to prevent a crippling dock strike that will send prices soaring, was all bad news not just for Harris/Walz, but for our leaderless country.

 
Oh, and the silly moderators decided to make the tragedy playing out before our eyes called Hurrican Helene was tossed in as a climate change issue, something on almost no one's list of concerns. Someone ought to fly them to NC to scoop mud out of homes.

The "facts" Walz blurted out were never fact checked by the moderators, and some were blatantly false (not misinformation or misspoke, either). It looks as though the legacy media doesn't cover anything that could make Democrats look bad, so they just don't have the information to explain that awful, terrible, ridiculous border bill that failed, the one that would have codified an enormous number of illegals allowed in. Harris lied about it too in her debate with Trump.

The debate aftermath

I don't know what is more painful--listening to the rehash of how frail and confused the "leader of the free world" was last night, or how disgusting the shock and horror of the Demedia was, especially when they've known this his whole term. The media have lied to Democrats in propping him up.

I asked one of my Fitness Friends this morning if he'd watched the debate (he's 70, but looks 50--don't you hate that). He made an interesting observation: "If the Democrats hadn't cheated in 2020, we'd be done with both of them and both parties could bring in younger candidates."

Biden on minimum wage—the debate

Don't be fooled by their sob stories. Democrats trot out this tired donkey weighed down by this burden every election. It's a tiny percentage of American workers—4.3% of hourly wage earners and 2.9% of all workers. Part-timers like your teen who has to be taught everything may be on minimum before he proves his ability to follow directions. By misleading you with the importance of minimum wage (instituted in the 1930s so whites could better compete against blacks), Joe doesn't need to talk about his tax increases, his hostility toward capitalism, his own ill-gotten family wealth, the wealth transfer out of the middle class wallet to the low income and the high income, and how his far left Marxist supporters don't believe you should have personal property let alone a decent wage. And btw, his Marxist supporters will call me a racist for quoting statistics. It's a rule. Even math is racist.

And did you hear Joe whine at the debate about first responders being paid minimum wage? On what planet? Average base pay of a firefighter in NYC is about $87,000. In Chicago, about $76,000. In Columbus, OH $47,000. But the payoff is always the benefits, especially retirement. And did he tell you, that even a federal minimum which is about half of what a lot of cities offer, 2 people working full time at minimum wage sharing a home earn to much to qualify for any common benefits like Food States or Section 8 or Medicaid?

The Democrat Party platform

Democrat debate debacle

"I am on page 520 of the Gorbachev biography, and learning how he tried to change the Soviet Union by undoing the exact policies that I heard espoused last night by the debaters. When Gorbachev was leader, the Soviet Union was collapsing in very similar ways to today’s Venezuela, all because of anti-business, anti-profit motive, central run, heavily regulating government. There was nothing in shops, farm products were rotting in the fields, and people were poor and starving. All as a result of the same policies Warren and the others were saying they would put into effect." From Ross Rant, June 27, Citadel Realty, newsletter.

Friends, relatives and casual readers:  Don't say you weren't warned both by history and by people who have been there. "Free stuff" is not a policy, it's a recipe for disaster. You may not like Trump, but do you love socialism?

“Much like Wednesday night’s debacle of Democrat discourse, the candidates screamed for socialism over a strong economy. They assailed the evil 1 percent. They assured the American people, 71 percent of whom feel we have a pretty good thing going, that they were wrong. Like a bad therapist telling a patient, “You’re only happy because you think you're happy.” Fortune cookies dispense greater wisdom.”  Townhall, https://townhall.com/columnists/paulcurry/2019/06/28/the-democratic-debate-debacle-part-ii-darkness-falls-n2549175

The debates—the American people lost

I didn't watch the so-called debates (I watched a dog act at the auditorium), but I did see snippets on CNN and Spectrum 1 at the wellness center this morning. I determined the general idea of the Democrats' program, but there were no surprises.

Kill the insurance companies.
Open the borders to all illegals.
Impeach.
Tax. Tax. Tax. More Taxation.
Lie.
More hate.
Kill the economy.
Speak Spanish because you're Irish and have a Spanish nick-name.
Speak Spanish because you think you're Spartacus.

No answers in any language.

Donna Brazile's apology for leaking debate questions

When a Democrat (Donna Brazile) apologizes for a crime and loss of trust by the public, this is what it sounds like. 

“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee said Monday during a satellite radio interview with liberal activist and SiriusXM host Joe Madison. She added that “if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.” (Washington Post, Nov. 7)

Translated:  "Don't get caught." A vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

Clinton on late term abortion

When moderator Chris Wallace asked the question about partial birth abortion (aka late-term termination) Mrs. Clinton refused to back down on her anti-life stand. In fact, she doubled down. The next day some leftists took to social media to assure us there is no such thing as a ninth month abortion where the baby is ripped out of the womb. But Abby Johnson who is a former staffer for Planned Parenthood says there are about 18,000 late term abortions a year, often because the parents have split or a disability has been discovered in the child. Also, whether the language is ripped out, cut out or expelled by a powerful chemical that starts labor, probably depends on your perspective--whether you’re the one being extracted or the one doing the removal.

Chris Wallace ran a tight ship in last night's debate

"Chris Wallace of Fox News demonstrated a capacity to maintain tight control over the proceedings and pressed both candidates on the issues that neither candidate wants to address. In Trump’s case, Wallace went head on into the accusations against him of sexual abuse of women and Trump’s allegedly vulgar and predatory behavior.

Clinton, meanwhile, was pressed vigorously to defend her record as secretary of state, her problems of untrustworthiness, the accusations of “pay for play” on the part of the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department and above all her undeniably liberal, even radical, positions on abortion.
The American public endured a second presidential debate a few weeks ago completely overshadowed by the charges of Trump’s behavior. By the third debate, the back-and-forth — characteristically acrimonious and filled with countercharges against former President Bill Clinton — had essentially run its course. Opinions and views on the matter are now set, and the damage to Trump has been done."

 http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/trump-vs.-clinton-iii-a-shift-in-focus

Ok.  Here's how the debate negatives went

• Trump's vulgar behavior.

Mrs. Clinton's

• record as Secretary of State
• untrustworthyness
• Clinton Foundation pay to play
• radical positions on abortion

Debate analysis

"Clinton tried throughout to be disciplined and on her talking points and her well-rehearsed (and, one presumes, focus group-tested) quips and one-liners. She tried consistently to paint Trump as a dangerous and unstable person, repeating many of the same descriptors used in her ads. Her aggressive debate style likely connected with the college-educated voters and her most dedicated constituency — the mainstream media — to whom she repeatedly appealed both before and during the debate to fact-check her opponent.

Trump was far less scripted and consequently less reliant on statistics, but held to his key points in the three segments of the debate. He was more accessible to the average blue-collar voter, the voting group where he is strongest.

While there were substantive issues addressed, including taxes, cyber-security, race relations and nuclear proliferation, much of the time centered on such topics as Trump’s taxes, President Obama’s birth certificate and Trump’s alleged treatment of women. Clinton clearly had the strategy of trying to provoke Trump with barbs and personal attacks. Her rival generally kept his cool, but he was far from perfect, missing several opportunities to exploit Clinton’s weakness on her emails and her record as secretary of state."

 http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/trump-clinton-presidential-debates-round-one

March 3 Republican debate

He nailed it. "Cruz's most devastating line was probably this summation: I understand the folks who are supporting Donald right now. You're angry. You're angry at Washington, and he uses angry rhetoric. But for 40 years, Donald has been part of the corruption in Washington that you're angry about. And you're not going to stop the corruption in Washington by supporting someone who has supported liberal Democrats for four decades, from Jimmy Carter to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton. You're not going to stop the corruption and the cronyism by supporting someone who has used government power for private gain."(Weekly Standard)

Question: Why do the parties allow the media to control the debates? Yes, they get ratings, they make money, and indirectly they select our president. But what do we the people get? I wouldn't send a nickle to the GOP.  Why has it allowed this?

Although I didn't hear him say it, I heard a rebroadcast of Trump's boast last night that he would kill the family members of terrorists. That's in violation of the Geneva Convention.  He's said this before, and it didn't faze his followers. Then last night he said the military would follow his orders even though the demand was illegal.

 Too many people seem to want something called a Republican in the White House without considering the cost.  "I believe no American, conservative or liberal, should support Trump. He doesn’t simply violate conservative principles. He violates American principles. Donald Trump is a danger to self-government, civil liberties, the culture of democracy, and the ideals of a free and open society."  (Paul David Miller, The Federalist)

What Gary learned from watching the Democrats debate

WHAT I LEARNED FROM WATCHING THE DEMOCRAT’S DEBATE from Gary's Facebook page (I didn't watch it, but this sounds very accurate based on what I know about the candidates)

* Black Lives Matter, All Lives Don't Matter.

* College should be free and all student loans cancelled.

* All medical treatment should be free.

* To become an American citizen you just need to show up here.

* The economy sucks and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

* The Middle Class is shrinking rapidly and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

* Average family income is continuing to drop and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

* Black youths have over a 50% unemployment rate and after 7 years in office it's not Obama's fault.

* Hispanic youth unemployment is over 35% and after 7 years in office, it's not Obama's fault.

* 50% of the population is paying 100% of all the taxes and they are still not paying their “fair share.” The other 50% are not receiving nearly enough free stuff and deserve more.

* Everyone who votes Democrat will work less, make more money, get more time off, spend more time with family, pay less taxes, and get more government subsidies.

* Government wants even more money to squander on old promises already broken.

* Being a "Progressive" is less cringe-worthy than saying you're a Liberal.

* When America grows up, we want to be Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands .

* There's a quagmire in Iraq and Obama's complete retreat from there has nothing to do with the situation.

* Republicans want dirty air, oil spills, trash in the streets, polluted oceans, no medical treatment, young people without any education being paid the lowest possible wages, starving children, were responsible for Jim Crow Laws and don't believe in equal rights.

* Snowden and General Petraeus broke laws for releasing and not securing secret documents but Hillary Clinton shares no responsibility for doing WORSE.

* If Hilary is elected, everything will be rainbows and Unicorns - just like with Obama.

* Hillary Clinton does walk on water.

* Cheaters do prosper.

* People often cheer stupidity.

* There is only one candidate given a voice in the Democrat Race.

* Hillary and Bill Clinton were born poor Black Children.

* All the qualifications needed to be President is to be a woman.

* Evil looks like anything white, rich, successful and productive.

* You will receive a participation trophy in life.

* Agreements of any kind should be signed and committed to, even if the other agreeing party doesn't live up to its obligations.

* Everyone else does it, so should we, regardless of any results in those other countries.

* Everything is still Bush's fault

Think about the civility and good manners of despots

I watched a report of viewer satisfaction with Tuesday's debate, and one thing that impressed them most about the Democrats was civility. Well, I hope so. Look at their ages--they should have good manners. However, not negotiating with Iran or Cuba for imprisoned Americans, grabbing the rights that belong to the states (10th amendment), funding an abortion organization that killed close to 400,000 unborn Americans in one year according to its own report, attacking free speech, freedom of religion and the 2nd amendment, and by default letting Russia back into the middle east power structure isn't my idea of civilized. Nor is pandering to the lowest common denominator to avoid these issues with socialist programs.

Look what’s in the bag of tricks. More scary treats.

As of 2010, 68.8% of Federal individual tax receipts including payroll taxes, were paid by the top 20% of taxpayers. And these candidates will do their best to keep anyone else from getting rich.

49% of all 2014 spending paid for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid; 20% went for income security (SNAP, TANF, housing, etc.).  Obamacare’s new spending will cost more than $1.8 trillion over the next decade. Now add in all these freebies.

I don’t drink

nor do I intend to watch the “debate.”  It’s quite predictable. Old, tired, socialist . . . issues.

Plagiary by Obama—the 2008 and 2012 debates compared

2012: I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.
2008: Let's just be clear. What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we're giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States.
*
2012: And so the question here tonight is not where we've been but where we’re going. Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations that we’ll be better off. [...]
Are we going to double down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess, or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says, America does best when the middle class does best? And I'm looking forward to having that debate.
2008: Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.
It hasn't worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president, and that's what I hope we're going to be talking about tonight.
*
2012: Now, I've identified areas where we can, right away, make a change that I believe would actually help the economy. The -- the oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get. Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money when they're making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn't we want to eliminate that?
2008: And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John -- this is undeniable -- oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks. Now, look, we all would love to lower taxes on everybody. But here's the problem: If we are giving them to oil companies, then that means that there are those who are not going to be getting them.
*
2012: [W]e've got to boost American energy production. And oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.
2008: We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years'time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States[.]
*
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/obama-plagiarizes-own-debate-promises-fr

Watching the debate—Obama is being Obama

David Gelernter on the debate: "Remember that Obama is Richard Nixon in a JFK suit. He can do a fair imitation of charm for the right audience, for a short time. But he is dour, sour, full of himself, and mean. He is a patronizing man who cares (and always has) about winning elections—not governing; not the United States. Romney just has to let Obama be Obama."

Lehrer appears to be cueing Obama and clarifying questions for him. This is like watching a massacre—Obama is a stumblebum without his teleprompter, he’s punch drunk, using scatter shot whereas Romney is taking aim and hitting the target.

But we all know how the MSM pundits will see it:  Obama has won!

Rabid news reporters

Last night in clicking through the channels I paused long enough to hear a female black (probably Democrat) commentator refer to the “rabid Tea Party.” No bias there. The audience had probably cheered a candidate as they are inclined to do at political events. Were Democrats "rabid" when they cheered Obama for singing 7 words of an Al Green song the other day? It's gone viral.

Tea Party members assemble peacefully, maybe they sing a hymn or patriotic song, listen to an Old Testament scripture or say the Pledge of Allegiance. They pay rent for the space they use (they don't just occupy it illegally) and clean it up. They invite candidates to speak on local and national issues--library, schools, water rights, zoning--they sponsor workshops, book clubs, and discussion groups. They are, in my opinion, the grass roots, town hall example of how to be an informed voter and good citizen. On the other hand, both political parties have arcane, obscure rules for even getting on a committee—no newcomer can hope to break through or have an influence.

So who is being rabid—that woman or the Tea Party?

The Education Debate--the transcript

Last night the candidates had stand-ins at Teachers College, Columbia University to debate their positions on education. This is a rough draft.

"Your opening question is how would Barack Obama differ from John McCain as an education president?"

The Obama representative LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND after saying we need more investment in early childhood education and healthcare and teachers’ salaries says: “So we have fallen to 35th in the world in Math, to 15th in terms of college access. And we are at a graduation rate that has been stagnant for 40 years, and others are pulling ahead.”

Call me crazy, but I think we’re talking content here, not healthcare. Drill, drill, drill is probably what's working in those other countries. And concerned parents. The best example is Cleveland and Columbus that have lower graduation rates than the district of the family in Appalachia (DeRolph v. State of Ohio) that sued the state for more per-pupil money (and won) a few years back. Now they have more computers and nicer buildings, but it didn't change the outcomes--which were already better than the big city schools because of parent involvement, not healthcare, not buildings. Now the increased property taxes they have to pay to keep up the schools is hurting their communities.

The McCain representative LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN points out McCain's support for charter schools in a bipartisan effort that included Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich and that Obama opted out of the effort, although he himself had been sent to private schools by his single mother, something Democrats deny other people‘s children.

I think the strongest case for charter or scholarship schools is that liberals, even in good districts like Springfield, VA (DC suburb) choose private schools for their kids. These schools recruit a very select, acceptable “diversity” element to look good. Keeps out the riff raff their kids might face in public school. What stops them is they are joined at the hip with teachers' unions.

Here’s the transcript, and I think the moderator was much too talky, so maybe it’s good that I didn’t get the audio (I think you can register to hear it).

The Education Debate

Last night the Obama and McCain advisors on education had a debate. Anyone see it? Will the video, for which you had to register, be made available to the general public?

For Obama
A former public school teacher [2 years in the early 70s], Linda Darling-Hammond, Palo Alto, Calif. is a leading researcher on how improving teacher quality helps student achievement, particularly for low-income children. A Yale graduate who earned her doctorate at Temple University, she has taught at Stanford since 1998. She led the redesign of Stanford’s Teacher Education Program to better prepare teachers to work in schools with diverse student populations. She and other professors helped found a charter school in Palo Alto, and she serves as vice president of the Stanford nonprofit that runs the school. Some education reformers have criticized her negative assessment of Teach for America, a popular program that puts recent college graduates in struggling schools after a few weeks of training. Darling-Hammond has said that no matter how bright and enthusiastic, a beginning teacher needs to have extensive training and certification. In 2005, she led a study that concluded certified teachers consistently produced stronger student achievement than Teach for America recruits in Houston.

For McCain
A one-time speech pathologist, Lisa Graham Keegan, Scottsdale, Ariz. began working on education policy issues as a state legislator and in 1994, was elected to the first of two terms as Arizona’s state schools superintendent. After helping to create a controversial test that set tougher academic standards for high school graduation, she took the entire test herself and posted her passing scores. Keegan, who has a master’s degree in communication disorders from Arizona State University, has served on education policy teams for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Soon after she joined the Education Leaders Council in 2001, the group amassed more than $33 million in federal grants for a program to help states and school districts meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The group came under fire after news reports in 2003 questioned its financial management. Graham Keegan resigned in 2004. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Education charged that the council wasn’t fully complying with federal regulations for spending. However, after subsequent audits, grant funding was eventually restored.

These bios came from the Catalyst Chicago web site, and it's not hard to pick out the bias, but it's the only place I found all the candidates. Plus, because this site has an archive, it is interesting to scroll through 1995-2000 reports on the Annenberg Challenge (the funds which Barack Obama distributed for various projects to improve Chicago schools) and see no progress or failure. There are other ways to track the careers on the internet, so this is just a taste.