Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Some quick debate observations

Some quick debate observations

Last updated on: October 14, 2015 at 9:33 am by Jane the Actuary

Some quick debate observations 2015-10-14T09:33:02-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I started watching the debate with good intentions — I didn’t take copious notes but I tweeted a few comments along the way so I’ll reconstruct my impressions by checking twitter. These are purely my impressions; I haven’t done any reading yet on what others have to say, and, to be honest, I was folding laundry, and checking in on the kids, and tucking one in along the way, so I missed a lot.

*******

Odd “pre-debate” starting point: a taped message from Obama, in the nature of a campaign commercial boasting of his time as president and urging election of a Democrat. Justified because it was shown to the audience at the debate. In fact, the whole debate itself was different than prior ones; instead of the standard injunction to be quiet, the audience was encouraged to cheer for their favorites.

The debate started with an opening more reminiscent of the start of a sports playoff, then with the national anthem. Odd — I certainly didn’t remember this from the GOP version. Is this meant to signal patriotism?

The opening statements: fairly unforgettable but so carefully memorized that, except for Sanders, they seemed to be reading from a directly-in-front-of-them teleprompter.

The moderator starts off with the premise of asking each candidate about their weakness but I don’t remember Clinton’s question, just Sanders’: “aren’t you a crackpot socialist?” To which he replied that his models are the Scandinavian countries, and he wants the U.S. to be like them. (Remind me to blog later on the fact that the progressive image of Sweden is far from the reality — heck, they and Norway both reformed their Social Security systems.)

Clinton is asked about her staking a claim, in various venues to being both a “progressive” and a “moderate” — her answer is basically “I am a progressive moderate,” trying to square the circle. It was clear that “moderate” was a dirty word that couldn’t be admitted to.

O’Malley was asked about his record in Baltimore, to which is replied, basically, “you think it’s bad now? It was a ton worse before I was there!”

Webb had apparently made a statement expressing skepticism about affirmative action, to which he said, “I support affirmative action for the black community because of the legacy of discrimination; but I doubtful that it makes sense for other groups” — though he didn’t specify who he meant. Presumably he had in mind recent immigrants, or perhaps also women as well.

On guns: the first thing to note is that the stylebook seems to dictate the phrase “common sense gun safety legislation” — over and over again. No specifics on what this means, though, except that Sanders was called on to defend his vote against a bill which would have made gun dealers liable for crimes committed with guns they sell. His response is partly-reasonable: “you have to understand the bigger picture that this bill, like so many others, contained a mix of reasonable and unreasonable provisions” — but at the same time, he then moved to “you have to understand that I come from Vermont and my constituents would have my hide if I voted for a bill like this.” He came off, to me at least, as saying “my constituents are unreasonable and they made me do it,” and he repeated this several times, not revisiting the first bit about the objectionable bits in this particular bill, which Clinton and others either did vote for or affirmed they would have.

Webb, on the other hand, wasn’t backing down from his support for gun ownership for self-defense. Good luck with that!

On foreign policy, and Clinton’s infamous “reset”: her rationale is that Medvedev was a reasonable, moderate fellow who could be worked with. The only problem was the subsequently Putin regained control and started to cause trouble. Really? She’s trying to spin this as if Medvedev wasn’t working together with Putin the whole time?

The general chorus on Syria was a unanimous: “not our problem.”

Sanders was asked, “when would you use force” and he used the example of fighting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Now, to be sure, this was some low-hanging fruit, a pretty low-risk intervention, but if your standard is fighting ethnic cleansing, then shouldn’t the genocide of religious minorities in ISIS-controlled territory merit some concern — or at least some honesty, if what you really mean is “I support use of force to stop injustice when it looks pretty risk-free”?

Then I went o get some more laundry to sort and all the sudden they were back to Iraq and squabbling over who opposed military action there most strongly, and reiterating the (since-disproven) claim that “Bush lied!”

The closest to a zinger of the night: Clinton was apparently prattling on about no-fly zones, and O’Malley said something to the effect of “hey, you have to enforce a no-fly zone, Senator Clinton, not just declare one.” If memory serves, Clinton’s reply was that we would pawn off the work onto our allies.

Here’s Clinton’s defense of what happened in Libya: 1) Qadaffi was threatening to do bad things to people, 2) our allies really wanted us to intervene, and 3) hey! they held free elections before things went to pot. Of course, 1) the same was true of Saddam, 2) we don’t (or shouldn’t) be making decisions based on allies in this fashion and 3) Iraq also had free elections — remember the purple-finger celebrations?

Then the candidates were asked about the greatest national security threat: Clinton said something about keeping nukes away from terrorists. Sanders says climate change. Really?

Somewhere along the way there seems to have been discussion about what appear to be the Health Care Reform agenda items for 2016: free college, and paid parental leave. (Not free child care?) No real disputes among the candidates except for who’d be most successful, with one or another of the candidates reminding the others, and the audience, that you have to work with a likely-GOP congress to get any such thing passed. It seems to me that Clinton touted her ability to do so, while at the same time, being proud that they hated her guts.

The high point of the debate: some discussion about the e-mail issue, and I came back to the TV just in time to hear Bernie Sanders defending Clinton: “no one cares about the e-mails.”

In the end, it’s game over — does Sanders really want to be president? No. It’s been long speculated that his objective, and the objective of his supporters, is to push Clinton to the left. But here it is: Democrats don’t care about the e-mail issue; perhaps in other circumstances, they would, but they don’t see themselves as having a good alternative to Clinton and winning the White House is key, so they’re willing to discard questions of whether she put national security at risk, or used her office for personal advantage, or is failing to disclose correspondence. And Sanders’ response here makes it clear: he doesn’t want Clinton to be damaged, because he knows she’s the nominee. Fundamentally, he’s protecting her. If we had a multiparty coalition-building system, he’s be the minor party trying to get enough votes to put him in a position to start making demands in a coalition agreement.

And that was about as much as I could stand, and I started watching the Big Bang Theory (on On Demand), until my husband came back from his meeting and the show ended, and we resumed watching. “Who’s your greatest enemy?” or something like that was answered variously as “the GOP” by Clinton, and “the guy on the battlefield who lobbed a grenade at me, but he didn’t survive!” by Webb. Then closing statements with nothing memorable and it was finally over.

Now, I know I’m not the target audience. I liked Webb, but for reasons that make him completely unelectable as a Democrat. Fundamentally, it seems like what’s going on is a bidding war, of who can promised to turn us in to the most caricatured version of (pre-reform) Sweden, which speaks to their audience.

And, to reiterate, there are just my impressions. I haven’t read further commentary, from the left or right. For those who also watched it, what did you think?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 13, 2015

Dear Cardinal Marx (how to revive the Catholic Church in Germany)

Next Post

October 14, 2015 Another reason Bernie Sanders wishes he lived in Europe

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, how many elders sit on thrones around God's throne?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Twenty-four Seventy Twelve Seven