Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 254: Houston Democrat debate -- Why do they hate America so much?

Democrat Top Tier
If you've been in a movie theater and a few minutes into the film wondered whether it was ever going to end, you understand exactly how it felt to be a conservative watching Thursday night as the Democrat presidential candidates “debated” in Houston, Texas (at Texas Southern University). Though it’s safe to say few limited-government lovers were in actual attendance at the event, no doubt many thousands squirmed and grimaced through most or all of the program at home.

A lot of people ask me, why watch when you know what’s in store? It’s always a good thing to know what you’re up against -- and it’s doubly true in politics. One of these incomprehensible liberals will be the Democrat nominee next year and receive more than his or her share of media attention/adulation. So, it’s important to determine… what are they like? What do they purport to believe in? Are they a threat to President Trump’s reelection?

None of these questions were adequately resolved in Houston, mostly because the Democrats don’t even know the answers themselves. To an objective observer Trump must seem like a political choir boy in comparison to this eclectic group of nasty, petulant and whiney wannabes. Trump’s 2016 campaign premise was Make America Great Again, an easily digestible slogan and concept. What consolidated theme would any of these Democrats base their campaigns on?

“Make America San Francisco forever”???

At least if you get up and leave during an offensive movie, fellow audience members probably wouldn’t even notice the gesture or simply assume you’re going to the restroom or concession stand upon exiting your seat. But if you pulled a similar exodus while still bloodshot Joe Biden or the very hoarse Bernie Sanders spoke at this type of show event, the politically correct police would take down your name, place of residence and social security number.

It only seems to get crazier for the liberal party, and the absurdity was on full display in Houston. Long gone are the days when Democrat presidential candidates tried to keep one leg in the moderation lane so as to appeal to the segment of Democrat voters who still value American traditions and the notion that government should do as little as possible in everyone’s lives, except for ensuring economic fairness and a place for the “little guy” to advance.

Now it seems like a grand competition for each Democrat to outdo the others to conquer the socialist/big government lane. Race frontrunner Joe Biden occupied one of two lecterns in the center of the stage and expended most of his time dodging and parrying as though he were a past-prime Roman gladiator with sword raised high flailing at any menace within reach so as to live to fight another day. Appearing particularly ancient and increasingly combative and cranky (though not as bad as Sanders, who is clearly under-the-weather), Biden’s all-but abandoned his good-guy “Uncle Joe” gregarious persona in favor of acting the curmudgeonly malcontent who’s just as angry and bothered as the rest of them.

Who knows, maybe Joe’s frustrated at his inability to dampen the media furor over his gaffe-prone orifice. Biden could be the first politician ever who actually prefers the stump, fundraisers and the reception line to the back-and-forth of the national debate stage. And it shows.

Only New Jersey Senator “I am Spartacus” Booker looks comfortable in the calm and collected jokester role now, though his goofball antics detract from his race-is-everything pitch. Most of the candidates don’t dare crack a smile lest they come off as less than absolutely pissed-off about the state of the country under Trump, as though record unemployment rates and skyrocketing consumer confidence is something to be distraught about. If Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren grinned it would crack her face and fog her granny glasses. It’d be ugly.

Former Obama HUD Secretary Julián Castro exhibits perhaps the foulest mood of all, quite a distinguished designation considering his competition. There’s never been an illegal alien that Castro doesn’t love and he’s willing to frown and preach his way to oblivion to ensure all of the document-less can stay on our soil permanently. He seemed to take particular pleasure in attacking Biden, so his presentation did add some entertainment value.

Castro’s near-match for most out-of-place is the ever dwindling “Beto” O’Rourke, a new-on-the-scene politician who was riding high a half-year ago before millions of Americans got a good gander at him…and didn’t like what they saw. “Beto” fruitlessly tries to depict himself as an avenging climate change-driven angel sent to earth to save everyone from the evil gun-loving liberty people. Anyone who ever thought “Beto” had a promising future now likely sees him as a pathetic loner without a cause -- or a job -- particularly because he came right out and said it… he’s all about gun confiscation!

“Beto” is merely contributing to the global warming problem since all he's capable of doing these days is turning oxygen into atmosphere-heating carbon dioxide.

Andrew Yang (along with the absent Marianne Williamson) is kind of a curious oddity in the Democrat field -- a true outsider who speaks fairly well and sounds credible, yet there’s something missing. But Democrats don’t care a lick about outsiders anyway. As the home faction of America’s snobby liberal elites, Yang doesn’t carry enough status to merit much scrutiny from the conceited set. The greater part of the Democrat grassroots also favors stability over turmoil. Take a chance on someone like Yang? No way.

Kamala Harris tried her best to steal some semblance of momentum away from the three central-stage septuagenarians, but you can’t help but feel her day has come and gone. Frequently confused and hesitant about what she even believes -- or thinks she should say -- Harris is working just to staunch the poll bleeding and remain in the conversation for the Democrat crown. She’s not as articulate as Warren, as ticked-off as Bernie and establishment-friendly as Biden. The pundits still love her, but does anyone else? She probably took the prize for most engaging opening statement -- where she spoke directly to President Trump -- but afterwards she disappeared.

Prediction: if the African-American vote starts defecting from Biden they’ll head to Warren rather than Harris. Just a hunch.

Did any of the Democrats say something surprising on Thursday night or offer a fading glimpse of hope for the future? Or present solutions to issues other than removing the current regime and punishing people who don’t take to their climate hysteria seriously or latch-on to their drive to have government assume direction over the health industry?

Where’s the old “It’s the economy stupid!” mantra of Bill Clinton? You know, the hand-up rather than the hand-out? Now it’s just rubber-stamp boilerplate socialism heated up with expensive taxpayer subsidized energy from wind farms and solar panels.

One could make a good argument that it’s no longer necessary to even tune-in to the Democrat debates because they’ve become so predictable. Program moderators Linsey Davis, David Muir, Jorge Ramos, and George Stephanopoulos tried to frame old topics in new ways to force the candidates to reveal real differences in their various plans -- I mean pipedreams -- but the discussion always inevitably devolves into the aspirants frequently interrupting each other to get in a plug for their own thrown-together ideas, no matter how far-fetched or impossible to enact.

It’s not hard to perceive this isn’t a collection of people rivaling Ronald Reagan for optimism and good humor. No “Shining City on a Hill” is within sight of the Democrats. To them, America’s best days are history -- now it’s more like a dingy dystopian metropolis in a lowland bog populated with racist troglodytes dragging women around by their hair and beating and lynching brown-skinned folks whenever they’re brave enough to venture out in public -- Jussie Smollett-style.

Are these Democrats truly what America wants to lead them? Is Trump really that bad?

As I watched the candidates relentlessly flog the president, the country and its individualistic, responsible and accountable ideals, a thought occurred to me. Fresh faced 37-year-old “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg (does he still get zits?) turned eighteen in January, 2000. This basically means he came of age and formulated much of his worldview during the fairly prosperous but politically turbulent nineties with Big Bubba Bill Clinton as president grappling with Newt Gingrich as Speaker and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress passing the Contract with America.

The biggest dilemma of the time -- in Washington at least -- involved whether the president actually did “have sex with that woman” and whether he lied to cover it up, initiating an enormous scandal that eventually led to his justifiable impeachment. At the very minimum Clinton’s follies was a national embarrassment that split the country in two at a time when everything else was fairly mellow and amicable.

The Cold War was over by the time Buttigieg became a teenager, which meant the decade’s relative economic prosperity and general harmony -- and peace abroad, after the end of Gulf War I -- must have had a profound influence on the youth. Therefore, his impression of recent history should be markedly brighter and cheerier than the inklings of the Democrat frontrunners, all of whom are in their seventies and lived through darker challenges at home and overseas in their formative years.

Sickly 78-year-old Sanders just had another birthday five days ago -- but don’t fill up his cake with candles -- you’ll be in danger of burning the place down. In contrast to Buttigieg, Bernie celebrated his 18th birthday in September, 1959, a much different time in American lore (for perspective, Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states in 1959). Like “Mayor Pete” decades later, the young socialist came of age during relative prosperity and American economic growth. But if The Bern’s family had a big black-and-white TV screen back then he might’ve seen news footage of Soviet tanks putting down insurrections and a time of incredible instability and fear in the western world.

The Iron Curtain was real. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wasn’t someone to emulate, was he? But Bernie probably loved him! “We will bury you.” Invite the guy to a backyard party!

Ditto for 76-year-old Joe Biden and comparative spring chicken “Pocahontas” Warren, who just turned 70 a few months ago. Both of their teen years occurred prior to the “flower power” excesses of the late 60’s, which means they should’ve been brought up to see America as a place for good and positive things, as well as a country that was capable of changing for the better -- such as the Civil Rights Movement.

As adolescent impressionables, Biden, Sanders and Warren should’ve been happy to live in an America that was the “good guy” in the struggle between two world super powers, a place where young citizens assumed a better life awaited them because of the struggles, sacrifices and accomplishments of their parents and grandparents.

To the “Greatest Generation,” American soldiers were liberators and heroes instead of oppressors and ideological tormentors. A knock at the front door likely signaled the presence of a friendly neighbor rather than a government agent waiting to arrest you and send you away to a gulag-style reeducation camp. Nothing in their backgrounds suggests Biden, Sanders and Warren lived anything other than fairly typical lives in their respective regions of the country -- like millions of other kids in the same time frame.

So why their negativity now? Why are they so angry? Where did they acquire their dark and somber attitudes on today’s America, its business prosperity and its people? As three kids fortunate enough to win the humanity lottery and be born and raised in the good ‘ol U.S.A. during its postwar heyday, why are these Democrats in such a hurry to make radical alterations to a course that’s worked for decades if not longer?

Go figure. Historians will likely puzzle for years over the Democrats’ doomsday tone during this campaign. With the way it’s going, it’ll be something people reflect upon for a long time… and they all claim to be the ones to unite the nation, too!

One other observation -- this Democrat debate will almost certainly be known more for who (or what) wasn't there rather than the candidates who took part. Absent from the stage were all of the field's “moderates”. As a result, any semblance of common sense and realism also took a respite from the Democrat presidential race -- not that it was ever present in the first place.

In Houston there wasn't a John Delaney or Gov. Steve Bullock to shake their heads and name names in defense of fending off the sure-to-be-disastrous government takeover of healthcare. And there certainly wasn't a Rep. Tulsi Gabbard present to call out the radical leftist liars in the field who champion any kook fringe cause simply because they believe it will lead to a few more head nods, (literal) shout-outs and primary or caucus votes.

It's becoming increasingly evident the Democrat race is boiling down to a contest between the DC swamp establishment and leftists, with rickety old Biden holding the hopes of the old guard in his gnarled ancient fingers. Can “Grampa” Joe hold on? The next couple months will be instructive, but it certainly appears as though the race will tighten.

Nightmare scenario for the Democrats: Warren wins in Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire and Biden blasts them both in black voter-fueled South Carolina. And Kamala Harris comes in second or third in all three. Each would lay claim to being the frontrunner at that point and it’s possible -- even likely -- more than one candidate would still be competitive heading into the party convention. If this happens it’ll be an epic fight, worthy of watching… kind of like seeing a train wreck in slow motion.

At least more so than Thursday night’s program. Democrats have a heck of a lot of work -- and soul-searching -- to do before settling on a nominee to challenge President Donald Trump in next year’s general election. The confusion and indecision on display in Houston won’t clarify the hard choices for the party’s voters -- if anything, it’s more wide open than ever for America’s liberals.

Share this