Connect with us
Click me!

Commentary

Democrat vs Democrat

“To break the monotony, candidates might swerve into a real political and economic platform. But other than an anti-Trump agenda what substance did they have?

Dean Dela Paz

Published

on

When one argues against one’s self-interests, a zero sum is created. It’s the mark of a loser. In the case of the final Democratic Party Debates sponsored by the Cable News Network (CNN) held last week, the Democrats seem to have doomed their fate.

Had not the debates designed to choose the presidential candidate that the Democratic Party might field to contest a sitting Republican president been so utterly boring then what was expected to be a slow night might have been a total sleeper. What fireworks were set off came when the main microphones were muted and the debate had ended. All there was left were the obligatory half smiles and infirm handshakes.

Venom and vitriol however continued to be spread and exchanged between Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom had evidently dismissed frontrunner Joseph Biden as a rambling old geezer who often did not know what he was saying or even where he was.

Media loves conflicts and an old man stuttering, repeating himself and having difficulty remembering whether he spent 50 or five years on a neighborhood paper route was not the stuff of breaking news or banner headlines. Unfortunately for a news outfit like CNN, open animosity between a debate panelist and a candidate was.

But then what else can a network do when they have in front of them a bunch of losers with terrible ideas they pass off as presidential platforms from late stage abortion to outlawing petroleum fuels, to open borders and higher taxes to benefit illegal aliens.

As a postscript, the debate’s eventual attraction was not on platforms but rather on the partiality of the network hosting the debate.

In one instance, Sanders was asked by a CNN moderator to comment on Warren’s accusation that he declared a woman would never become president. Immediately after Sanders had denied he ever made such a remark, totaling ignoring him, the panelist turned to Warren to ask her about the apparent sexist remark.

News analysts not only saw in that rude dismissal coming from the debate’s hosts misplaced partiality but also unacceptable and brazen disrespect. The partiality would later be revalidated when CNN unexpectedly leaked “unofficial” audio of arguments between the two after the debate had ended and the main microphones were switched off.

For MSNBC, that CNN thrives on controversy to sell airtime is nothing new. The sexist story was a CNN story scooped earlier from unnamed sources. MSNBC pundit Lawrence O’Donnell said, “CNN has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies to the CNN audience in the middle of, you know, a CNN hour for a number of minutes.” Immediately, pornstar lawyer and presidential wannabe Michael Avenatti comes to mind.

What injected blood into the past Democratic debates was that each hopeful had something negative to say about Donald Trump. It was the B movie factor and essentially bloodlust that founded viewership ratings. But since most of the vitriol had already been fully ventilated, then nothing the candidates could thereafter say was either novel or new.

Moreover, for those self-sickened from having to repeatedly suffer the very same litany of Trump’s faults, to break the monotony, candidates might swerve into a real political and economic platform. But other than an anti-Trump agenda what substance did they have?

Naturally the Democrats would avoid discussing common positions such as increasing the delivery of cash to terrorist states like Iran, open borders and the creation of sanctuary cities for undocumented aliens and an un-Christian advocacy for late term abortions. Any one of those would have delivered votes to anyone on the other side of the partisan aisle. The first effectively funds terrorism, while the last kills unborn children.

In a debate the focus is on aggressive conflict. Biden represents the old order where politicians are funded by big businesses and quid pro quo paybacks are established. Opposite are the extreme socialist agendas of Sanders and Warren. Unfortunately, what the electorate sees is a party at war with itself.

Click to comment