Videos: The agents of demagoguery change
posted at 11:19 pm on January 5, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
For the Democrats, it’s all about ch-ch-changes. Not in any particular direction, just change by the platitude pound. First, here’s paranoid John Edwards making alliance with Barack Obama by going after “the forces of status quo,” earning Hillary’s icy stare for his efforts.
And here’s Hillary’s attempt to make her record one that demonstrates that even though she has been in Washington pretty much forever, she’s a big old change agent herself.
Resolved: The phrase “make change” should be banished from these debates. It makes them all sound like they’re experts at breaking a dollar down into coins.
Finale: Here’s how I score the debates.
GOP
1st–Fred wins. He said the least but what he said was most worth listening to. He managed to come across as the sage in the race, too wise to get into the fray but not above smacking the kids around when he has to.
2nd–Romney. He had to spend too much time on the defensive but he drew an apparent lie out of Huckabee on the surge and showed that he has a wonky streak. He also came across as in command of the facts, when he wasn’t having to fend off McCain’s swipes.
3rd–Huckabee. He’s good at this, but not as good as he has been in the past. He knows how to connect and he knows how to speak at a digestible level of detail. His command of the facts is weak though and he didn’t say anything memorable. His “bunker mentality” response didn’t work.
4th–Giuliani. I just didn’t think he was very impressive tonight.
5th–McCain. He’s shading the truth on amnesty and he showed a nasty streak a couple of times. Had a couple of good moments here and there.
6th–Paul, for whom I have one last question. We have several bases all over Germany. Why aren’t Lutheran terrorists flying airplanes into US buildings? Paul’s foreign policy is idiotic and dangerous.
Dems
I confess I missed a lot of this one because I was editing clips from this one, but here’s how I would score it.
1st–Obama. He’s easily the most likable and avoids gaffes. He stole the Hillary boo-freakin-hoo moment, which was set up for her to emote. Well played.
2nd–Edwards and Hillary tie. I can’t stand either one of them. They’re both shrill demagogues.
4th–Richardson. He doesn’t seem to know what year it is. He should stop pretending that he’s presidential material, because he clearly isn’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Sure, by all means. (sorry for the late reply, I had to go back and figure out what post of mine you were talking about) :)
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Please, *I* stand head and shoulders above what the Democrats are offering, but that isn’t saying much.
I don’t want to hold my leaders to the standard of being ‘better than the Democrats’, I want to hold them to the standard of what a leader should be. Just because all the Republicans are better than the Democrats, does not mean they are good candidates in general.
Just use the analogy of food. Let’s say that Olive Garden (or just insert your favorite classy restaurant here) is the standard for the best food. What we have here with Democrat and Republicans is McDonald’s and Wendy’s. We’re saying that Wendy’s is great, because we are comparing it to McDonald’s. Of course it is, when we’re talking about crappy fast food. But the standard for good food shouldn’t be fast food. The standard for our elected leaders should not be empty suit policitians, but rather principled statesmen. The only way we get that though is if we hold them to the higher standard.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. If the GOP willfully nominates a 75% liberal for their candidate for the presidency, then the GOP is moving leftward, and moving left in this day and age is as bad for the country as it gets.
The GOP is a political party with an agenda, and that is to stay in power, not to improve the country. Some may not like that outlook, but it’s the hard truth. It’s up to the people in office to try to improve the country. It’s up to the GOP to get votes and money. Same goes for the DNC.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 1:52 AM
This is exactly why I so enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh: he respects his listeners and holds them to a high standard. He talks to us like we are on the same level as him, he does not talk down to us. He is also inspiring, not negative. Sure he has his moments, he is only human, but his overall message is to inspire people to get informed, get educated and get engaged in politics.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Socrates in a nut shell said: The fisherman should fish, the tailor should sew, and the king should rule. The point being that everyman should do what he loves and is best at. The community benefits most by everyone dedicated to their own craft.
I mention that because your ideal is more like the white stone/black stone democracy of Athens. Everyman is a politician in other words. What you are advocating, essentially, is the intellectual requirements of a pure democracy - which fundamentally hampers the effectiveness of a state or a community.
What we have is a Republic. Which means that some of us follow politics very closely and many do not. We elect people to review and make decisions representative of us. That allows the fisherman to fish and the tailor to sew. Therefore the details of the surge, while interesting to us, are not necessary to the public. Whether it is troops or strategy or equipment, the key issue is if the public supports the effort. Details are left up to the representatives. That’s how it works. And it works better than any other system.
Just thought I’d mention it. It is also why it is necessary to maintain a voluntary election system, instead of compelled voting. Don’t feel educated enough? Don’t vote. Want to make a difference? Vote. If there is one thing our system fails in more than anything else, it is the voters willingness to hold politicians accountable.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Will there be a post event drug test?
Hillary was strangely calm and deliberate.
Unless the GOP nominee is Paul, McCain or Huckabee the liberals are in big, big trouble, anyone who watched both debates saw a gigantic gulf in substance between the libs and the Republicans.
What the TV audience should have picked up is the four Democrat candidates truly are universal health care, defeat and fantasy world socialists who don’t dare admit their true colors.
The liberals were quite content to superficially attack each other and continue running against the Pres. and thats because they can’t argue details or substance, not in the sunlight.
Speakup on January 6, 2008 at 2:03 AM
I agree in large part with that. I am a conservative before I am a Republican, and will vote accordingly should some future third party better represent my views.
Moving leftward would not be best for the GOP. So-called experts inside the party seem to think that we can capture some moderate support by adopting some Democrat positions. This is a complete myth, and leads me to question the acumen of our party leadership.
If we become “Democrat-lite” then there will be no point to moderates or conservatives voting Republican. It’s all or nothing.
Principles of strong national defense, American identity and exceptionalism, and being tough on crime resonate strongly with the American people. We need to play to our strengths.
joewm315 on January 6, 2008 at 2:04 AM
I see your point, but I guess I disagree a little. With the advent of military blogs out there now, I don’t see why political leaders cannot have their staff tasked with reading military blogs and educating themselves with military operations, so they can sound at least somewhat competent and informed about the war effort. Heck, from my reading of places such as Blackfive, Mudville Gazette, The Long War Journal, Small Wars Journal, etc, *I* probably am more informed on military matters, including military history and the current war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, than most of our elected officials. That is just plain sad. And so when I hear these people talk about the war effort in talking points and generalities and such, it is aggravating, because it is completely obvious that they have no idea what they are talking about. This is most evident with the Democrats.
But I don’t give anyone a pass about “not being in the loop and receiving briefings”, etc, because I have read military blogs the last few years and I have kept up with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq just fine. Anyone can do that in this age of military blogs and military embedded bloggers. There is no excuse anymore.
Because of that, I have a new standard for my elected leaders. They can no longer claim ignorance. I have a full time job and am still able to keep myself informed about these matters. But for them, keeping informed of these matters *is their job*!
No, they shouldn’t have their understanding in order to micromanage the war effort. But it is their *job*, nay responsibility and duty, to explain things to the American people. The biggest problem I have had with President Bush and his Administration in the war effort has been his utter lack of communication on the war effort and its progress and successes and why we have setbacks and what we are doing to learn and adapt and why it is necessary to stay, etc. His administration completely failed on that and, as a result, support for the war waned, because people only had the Democrats and the mass media pushing their message. And most people believed it, because they were ignorant of the truth.
I want my elected leaders held to a higher standard now, especially in matters of war. Because in this day and age of mass media using its power to undermine war efforts, it is necessary. You can’t just say ‘I support X’, you have to be able to explain what you are supporting and inspire people to support it as well.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 2:04 AM
I’m surprised that no one mentioned this before: Hillary got pretty vigorous about defending herself; About how she and Bill ‘made change’ and fought the entrenched special interests… by raising taxes, raising taxes, raising taxes and raising taxes.
I’m sure that that will resound well with all the voters who actually pay taxes.
Obama won the Dem side of the debate… Not that he is actually right about much of anything, but if one is not adept at ‘reading between the words’ he sounded reasonable, self assured, and likable.
LegendHasIt on January 6, 2008 at 2:13 AM
I understand completely. But I also understand that people are not going to support what they do not understand completely. Well, some people will blindly support, but we have seen that a lot of people will not in this past war effort. So that is when we need some leaders to explain it better and be leaders.
The problem I guess is not really with the specifics of the ’surge’-offensive/COIN strategy, but with the overall The Long War effort. If people supported the overall war effort, they would not need to be convinced about every little detail of the war effort like the COIN strategy and ’surge’ funding. But the problem was that the Adminstration was not convincing enough in explaining why we are going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then when the mass media and Democrats actively worked to lie and smear the effort and undermine it at every turn, the Administration did not adequately defend itself and explain The Long War.
I guess that is what I am getting at. I want to hear a candidate explain their understanding of The Long War and just stating “I support the surge” means nothing to me if they don’t understand The Long War overall.
But I concede your point about not having to explain all the details. However, I do expect candidates to be able to explain the details of The Long War and why they are supporting it. The reason Ron Paul does not have any traction aside from mainly Truthers is because he has explained clearly his opinion of The Long War: it only exists because of America. But just saying, “that’s poppycock, Ron Paul is wrong, we were attacked and we responded” is not enough. I want the candidates to explain their understanding of why we were attacked, the roots of the jihad in Islam and the history of this stuff in the Middle East, the rise of radical Islam in the West, the radicalizing of Muslims all over the world, especially the young in “Palestine” and immigrant “youths” in Britain, France, Canada and even here in America. Speaking of which, just saying “I support Israel” doesn’t mean much either. I’m sure President Bush stated that too, but he has now been arguably their worst enemy, forcing them into concession after concession with “Palestine” and even forcing them to stop defending themselves against the war with Hezb’Allah in Lebanon.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Nature abhors a vacuum. Leave something unexplained and someone will make up a story for you to fill the void. The Administration hasn’t done very well on this score at all I think. The joker in me would says that they are like Fred. You might totally agree with them, but you have to go dig it up for yourself to find out.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Not to point out the obvious or anything, but in order to get elected, the GOP must get the votes of 51 percent of voters. The “left” ten percent of those voters won’t have the same positions as the “right” ten percent. Therefore, we need to decide exactly what are the most important positions and relax a little on the positions of lesser importance. Most of the President’s domestic power resides in judicial appointments. That and foreign policy are the most important qualities that I’m looking for in a candidate. I’m willing to compromise a little in order to get those items enacted. What are your priorities?
JohnJ on January 6, 2008 at 4:42 AM
Were you also traveling to a different city and making multiple public appearances there every day?
I mean, it is a good objective, and I sympathize with objective, but as a practical matter President Bush did not craft the COIN strategy. He found the right person to come up with one for him, made the (correct) assessment that there was a good chance of success if the plan was followed, and made the (critical) decision that he was going to fight like hell against Congress if they tried to prevent it from happening.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Obviously the area where the President makes the most difference is national security and foreign policy. In the domestic realm, it is judges, as you say, and the budget - which includes tax policy and broad spending priorities. The more specific you get - down to individual issues like health care, energy, immigration, education, Social Security, etc, the more influence Congress has over the process, since they actually write the laws. The veto means the President is still relevant, but he cannot just dictate the law in any of those areas.
For me, the important issues are:
1) Staying on offense against the terrorists
2) Improving the security of the homeland and its borders
3) Keeping the economy strong through pro-growth, low-tax policies
4) Appointing judges who will enforce the laws, not legislate from the bench
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM
Bryan:
Love the way you emphasized change. We could put a more clear picture of Hitlery’s form of change as: Cha, Cha, $Ching$ Change.
MSGTAS on January 6, 2008 at 8:37 AM
good calls Bryan :thumbsup: i agree with your analasis.
trailortrash on January 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Who told you about our plans? Nothing more dangerous then a Lutheran cell…those…those…those…Christian beer guzzlers.
Attack the buildings, but leave the breweries.
right2bright on January 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Is Hillary the change-agent the same Hillary who’s running on her 35 years’ experience? You’d think she might see the contradiction. Or maybe she sees it, but figures we’re too dumb to notice?
She runs on change… loose change.
petefrt on January 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM
“Change” reminds me too much of the new pharse of “climate change,” and I’m not sure Owlgore gave his permission. Perhaps, the Dems should start using the word “global.” Makes better sense since they’re also pandering to the UN.
moonsbreath on January 6, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Good sum up on the debates Bryan, I agree.
Too bad we can’t get more Fred out there. He should be our guy but the TV just don’t like him. Ever since 1960 you gotta be loved by the TV to get elected.
conservnut on January 6, 2008 at 10:44 AM
During the first Bush campaign, the forums were where the political action was on the internet. Forums were a precursor of blogs. One of the most popular forum hosts was Delphi.
Anyone remember the old Fox News Forum, before the trolls tore it up? I miss that place to this day.
petefrt on January 6, 2008 at 10:44 AM
sorry I missed our planning session for destroying the west last night…….got drunk.
conservnut on January 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM
That’s easy. 80% of New Mexicans don’t read English. They just go into the voting booth and pick whichever candidate has a ‘D’ next to their name.
rmgraha on January 6, 2008 at 10:57 AM
What debate was this guy watching? Fred was acting like a constipated old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn. He gets excited about that which he can’t control and is uninspiring when delineating his positions. Mitt nailed him big time on the health care issue by leading Fred into a discussion on details. Fred has very little detail and mostly rhetoric. He certainly is good at explaining what the problems are, but he has no clue how to develop policies to make the changes needed. This is his personality as a lawyer and senator. Very animated in confrontation, but cannot work within a non-confrontational environment.
Fred is doing what Huck is doing. Operating on the emotions of certain ideas instead of getting into the weeds of the details. IE: “There are some things I want to do that only a president can do.”
Oh really Fred? (rolleyes)
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM
That bit is very funny on it’s own, but in context with the debate, it’s hysterically funny. Thanks!
Re Bryan’s analysis - I don’t see Hillary’s stare as particularly icy.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Fred is a fan of conservatism. I guess that’s close enough for some, and not nearly enough for others. It may be as close as we get.
JiangxiDad on January 6, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I was so sick of the Dems always talking about how they’re fighting for this, fighting for that, that I was glad they switched to “change”. Except now they’re fighting for change, or they always fought for change.
If they’d change their attitude and fight our enemies, I could get behind that.
NellE on January 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Let’s look at this.
1.Hillary claims she has been making changes for 35 years.
2.Hillary claims the Country wants change.
From that, I suggest the Country wants change from the 35 years of Hillary.
Wade on January 6, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Don’t believe Hillary is a change agent? Look.
petefrt on January 6, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I tried, I really tried to be a good citizen and watch the debates but…they just about did me in. Both Dem and Repub. I know that this is all extremely important, that the direction our nation will head for the next few years will be determined by who wins the Presidency, but…I can’t stand the political crap. I want to enjoy 2008; I don’t want my sensibilities sandblasted by mudslinging political garbage for eleven months.
I already know who I will and will not vote for, so I’m ready for Election Day.
Doug on January 6, 2008 at 8:33 PM
To: MadisonConservative and John_Locke. Good point. Conservatism should always be the primary motivator.
RMR on January 6, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Change?
It’s clear that the Dem’s will your take hard-earned DOLLARS and leave you with just CHANGE!!!
Dem’s enemies: Employers, stores offering value for your money, anyone providing energy or health care to you in any form, private enterprise, patriots, and anybody who is self-sufficient.
Dem’s friends: Nobody…but they’ll PRETEND to be friends with anyone who gives them large amounts of money or who hates America loudly and publicly.
landlines on January 6, 2008 at 9:47 PM
How’s the Fred Kool-Aid taste Bryan? Fred repeats his policy positions ad nauseum, inspires no-one, connects with no-one who wasn’t already supporting him, falls into irrelevancy. I’d hardly call “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results” a winner. It’s insanity. I wouldn’t place him last of course, but come on Bryan, 1st place for a man who made no gains with anyone, who isn’t even a factor in NH to begin with, who is basically praying that Romney screws up enough to lose NH to McCain, leaving each contender to one primary each by SC?
Fred didn’t show he was wise, just a wise-ass. Those come a dime a dozen.
BKennedy on January 6, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Well, first of all, Hillary is garbage. Why she even thinks she will run this lovely country is beyond me. She’s trash and her husband is trash. She’s trash for her behaviour and lack of behaviour during her husbands impeachment hearings because she new some day she was going to run for that office. The pair are trash . She needs to pack it up and take what money she has left and get on wth her lawyer life casue thats all she’ll ever be.
johnnyU on January 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Who’s going to CHANGE her diapers and clean up the room when Hitlery has one of temper tantrums because because she can not get change to go her way?
MSGTAS on January 7, 2008 at 8:46 AM
The only change needed is to get rid of career polititions and get back to the original concept of the founders. This is a Republic not a democracy! Powers need to be taken away from the feds and given back to the states where they belong. Schools should be teaching this instead of the p.c. bull they now push.
Proudvet on January 7, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]