Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 177: That’s it? America groans as filled-out Dem field fails to astound

Democrat Debate 2
Is there strength in numbers?

Normally you would think so. But if you’re a Democrat hoping the large size of the party’s 2020 presidential field will translate to victory in next year’s national election, there’s no comfort in knowing each candidate’s individual faults were exposed to the world this week. And every single flaw of the Democrats’ two frontrunners (and the other eight losers too!) was on full display Thursday night as the second group of ten ambitious liberal pols took the stage in Miami, hoping to put distance between themselves and their fellow competitors as well as make President Donald Trump appear politically vulnerable.

Ironically, the stage was set with a mockup of the White House as a backdrop. Fortunately for America, it’s the closest any of these clowns will get to the real thing.

For his part, Trump was probably safely holed up in a comfy lounge chair in the White House living quarters. He and vice president Mike Pence likely enjoyed Diet Cokes and a few laughs while playfully tossing popcorn balls at the TV screen as their would-be opponents impaled themselves on the spike of socialism and cultural nuttiness. The typically confident Trump must be smiling from ear-to-ear these days as he recognizes the overall weakness of this sad bunch of stature-less Democrats, most of whom make Hillary Clinton look formidable and principled.

By their excesses and exaggerations, Democrat presidential candidates are only helping make Trump’s case for him. The tepid audience reaction (granted they’re told not to applaud) was in stark contrast to the wild fervent rallies Trump always generates. But what’s to like when everything the Democrats say has to do with people suffering, hurting and writhing in pain because the government isn’t there to provide balm to their financial wounds?

It’s obvious for all to see -- or at least to those paying attention to the pathetic presidential race -- that to a man (or woman) the candidates are repeating Hillary Clinton’s mistakes from the last time, namely using Trump’s personal characteristics and history and perceived unpopularity to frame their pitches, leaving policy questions wide open to be filled in only by boilerplate Democrat empty promises and assurances of more, more and more federal spending.

And don’t forget, there isn’t an unborn baby in the womb safe from the Democrats’ contempt for life in the name of furthering “women’s reproductive rights.” What a steaming malodorous pile of dogmeat. Having endured this foul line of reasoning for two consecutive nights it’s all one can do to retain his or her stomach contents.

There’s only so many times Democrats can assail Trump’s character and supposed racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, etc. before viewers’ eyes roll back in their heads, weary of another whiney gripe from politicians who’re jealous of the president’s lofty perch at the epicenter of the DC swamp. Recent polls indicate Trump is at least as popular as any other Republican with minority voting blocs, so it’s not clear what Democrats hope to gain by sustaining the inane “racism!” claptrap.

If anything, there are signs Trump is making headway with the Democrats’ prized ethnic constituencies. And if he wages a determined campaign to take away some of these votes, every single Democrat would be in serious trouble.

Like with Wednesday’s “debate,” there were several Democrat virtual unknowns to gander at for the first time. In no particular order, there was Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colorado), Author Marianne Williamson, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Businessman Andrew Yang and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Not exactly a killer’s row of unbeatable candidates, but on the whole, probably more interesting than the first debate’s fight card. The same biased group of moderators monotonously repeated their performances from the previous night (Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Díaz-Balart). Maddow is thoroughly annoying, but Democrat voters probably appreciate her single-minded directness.

Thursday night’s main distinction (from the night before) was the presence of Joe Biden at center stage, the race’s indisputable frontrunner. Buoyed by polls showing him up by around fifteen points, “Uncle Joe” was his usual jovial self for his first real debate test in seven years, tossing out remembrances of days gone by and things he’s seen and done throughout his long lifetime as he moved between good humor and seriousness. It helped that Joe was standing next to Sanders (who is about fifteen months Biden’s senior but looks ten years older), which made the 76 year-old look a little more spry and fresh by comparison.

But on Biden’s right was boyish “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, who appears even younger than his 37-year-old age. If Biden continues to be forced to appear alongside the youthful mayor of South Bend, Indiana, the media might start describing him as “Grandpa Joe” rather than the softer sounding “Uncle.” The Democrats’ vast age dispersion was on full display in Miami, which can’t be a good thing in the long run. The party’s elderly candidates won’t be able to assail Trump’s age (he just turned 73 a couple weeks ago) if Joe and Bernie keep leading the opinion surveys.

It defies common sense to count on the Democrats’ race, sex and gender-obsessed young impressionable voter base to opt for an old white guy, but pure electability appears to be the party’s driving force for the moment. Everyone already knows Biden’s and Bernie’s mugs so it’s no big shock to see them in the lead by comfortable margins. And it’s not like 70 year-old “Pocahontas” Warren -- Wednesday night’s debate winner -- is a spring chicken. There are only about five or six Democrat candidates with a realistic shot to win the nomination -- and the also-rans simply have too big of a hill to climb.

As with the first debate’s line-up, was there breakout potential for any of Thursday night’s unknown participants? In a word, no.

On the stage’s far left was Marianne Williamson, curiously identified as an “author.” How this no-name met the criteria for inclusion in the forum is beyond me, though she’s reasonably nice looking and somewhat well-spoken (given her stated profession). But heretofore, Williamson’s claim to fame was regularly appearing on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show. Does she even know where Washington is? Has she studied macroeconomics, run a business, immersed herself in foreign policy? Or spent time in committee meetings? “Oprah’s guru”? Would Winfrey be her VP? Plus, she’s a total wingnut.

Next to Marianne was former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, notorious for presiding over the fight to legalize marijuana so his Rocky Mountain State could legitimately be mocked as “Rocky Mountain High.” What’s John going to be known as, the “pot guy”? By reputation Hickenlooper’s reportedly more “moderate” than most Democrats -- but the label doesn’t mean much these days.

Then there was complete unknown Andrew Yang, who’s listed as a “businessman.” Yang’s scattered answers on Thursday night indicated he’s every bit as whacked out leftist as the rest of them -- and he is the Democrats’ lone Asian -- but what’s his selling point? That he could ethnically identify on a genetic level with Far East leaders?

Situated between Yang and Biden was “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg. As the Democrats’ proudest champion of gay rights, BOOT-EDGE-EDGE already has his built-in campaign theme. Everyone in America should expect to know what LGBTQ+ stands for by the time he’s done.

To Bernie Sanders’ left (on the stage at least) was Sen. Kamala Harris, hardly an unknown in the Andrew Yang mold but still a relatively new face on the national scene. Yet to be determined is where Harris stows her intellect, since she comes off as dumb as a doorknob. Being a minority female will carry you far in Democrat politics, but all the way to the presidency? No way.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand amply occupied the space next to Harris. Gillibrand used to be regarded as somewhat temperate and sensible on gun rights and fiscal matters, but no more. Instead of moderating to potentially set herself apart from her fellow candidates (and maybe breakout of the pack) she’s just as crazy leftist as the rest of them now.

Rounding out the debate stage was Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and California Congressman Eric Swalwell, two completely blank personas without a rationale to run for president. Like with Jay Inslee and John Delaney on Wednesday night, it was tough to figure why they’re even there. Did the Democrats purposely position all the reputation-less losers over to that one side?

In other words, there isn’t a potential breakout candidate in this group either, just like there wasn’t one the night before -- though former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro did receive a number of mentions by establishment media commentators as a new face who merits further scrutiny. And Tulsi Gabbard won praise from non-interventionists, including some conservatives. Castro did put himself out there with extraordinarily extreme positions on Wednesday night -- and even took a jab at fake ethnic “Beto” O’Rourke -- but there’s not much there to see below his Hispanic ethnicity.

No “unknown” stood out on Thursday night. Not even the Asian guy, Yang, did anything to get people talking. Just like Cory Booker is no Obama, Pete Buttigieg is no golden boy JFK-type either. Witchy and testy Kirsten Gillibrand could probably do a pretty good Hillary Clinton impression, but it wouldn’t exactly win her many votes, would it? And besides, “Pocahontas” Warren’s already cornered the “shout a lot and fight for everything no matter how stupid” vote.

Thursday night’s subject matter was similar to (if not identical) to Wednesday’s, which certainly must’ve presented an advantage to the night two participants. They could prepare answers in advance (like they don’t anyway). Abortion this, abortion that -- do you like abortion? Assuming the answer is an emphatic yes, how much do you REALLY like abortion?

Better get it right, Democrats. And you’d also better drool over climate change, nationalized healthcare (whether it means ditching private insurance or not) and be prepared to welcome all illegal aliens with open arms, preferably before they’ve been screened by the overburdened and underfunded border patrol (thanks, congressional Democrats!) for contagious diseases, lice and other maladies common to non-immunized people who’ve spent days or weeks traveling through strange and hostile territory and impossible weather.

Democrats, you’ve got to be against a border wall, too, so another young father and toddler daughter can drown crossing over -- and then blame Donald Trump for their deaths during a debate! If the laws weren’t enforced at all then no one would have to sneak in, right?

And rather than objectively highlighting the conundrums associated with two men in their late seventies running for a first presidential term, Democrats concentrate on fantastic socialistic promises (in Bernie’s case) and perceived electability (in Biden’s example) instead. These guys are two steps removed from the geriatric ward but no matter -- Donald Trump is a jerk! Who knows, maybe Bernie or Joe might be the first wheelchair-bound president since FDR.

Everyone appreciates identifying a “winner” in these puffed-up over-hyped political stage exhibitions, so you might say Biden was the strongest performer since he was directly attacked several times and responded (such as when Harris accused him of racism for being against mandatory busing in the 70’s). Through his wealth of experience and three presidential runs, Joe knows how to handle the attention involved with being the guy in the center ring of the circus. His opponents will keep sniping at his heels to try and make up polling ground, but just like with Hillary in 2016, they won’t want to damage him too badly.

That’s why Bernie will get onboard the Biden or Warren bandwagon if/when he loses. The Democrat establishment would never allow an unelectable schlep like Sanders to go against Trump. The stature gap there is so large people would have to choose Trump, even if they don’t like him personally. Here’s thinking Joe might not be the nominee -- but it definitely won’t be Bernie. We’ll learn a lot in the coming months.

As a side note, the MSNBC commentators were slobbering over Kamala Harris after the debate. Seriously? I thought she came off as a wacko idiot -- but that’s what Democrats apparently want! People generally don’t favor pampering illegal aliens and they sure don’t like being called racists. Something’s gotta give. Harris would be a dream opponent for Trump supporters.

America breathed a sigh of relief as the Democrat presidential candidates wrapped up their first “debates” of the 2020 cycle. Predictably, nothing much was ventured, nothing gained. Joe Biden will keep leading until he shoots himself in the foot -- or Democrats dump all of them and start over.

Anyone miss Crooked Hillary yet?

Share this