Giving A Debate Away

I usually find that I can't stand to listen to politicians talk for more than a few seconds. I'm continuing, usually in vain, to hope they'll make their points quickly so I can change the channel. The current exceptions to this include Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin (so far), with whom I disagree profoundly on many premises. Newt Gingrich is very clever, has a good sense of humor and is consistent within the confines of his flawed principles. Palin is cute, has a very refreshing sincerity and has a delightful "Fargo" accent. We'll see what the Republican handlers do to destroy that!

That (about Palin) might sound a mite demeaning, but I'm just referring to listening to her speak, not the content of what she says. I'm sure I'll have more of substance to say about the content of her speeches very soon.

I watched/listened to the debate yesterday in spite of all that. My comments are very predicatable, in that the debate (using the term very loosely) taught me nothing I didn't already know: With every new Presidential Campaign, our choices get closer and closer together. More and more bland, yet more and more able to affect our lives negatively.

More and more like Mr Thompson of the novel, Atlas Shrugged.

Mr McCain gave the debate away with his very first utterances, as he decried and condemned the greed of bankers, financiers and Wall Street traders and called for prosecutions (persecution?) and punishment, showing that he equates seeking profit with criminality. He partially redeemed himself on a couple of occasions, but never fully washed away the stink of anti-capitalism from his presentation.

Mr Obama, for his part, spoke with more consistency within the confines of his basic premises. Again, they were all wrong, but he came off with a bit more believability than did McCain. Obama was very careful not to let us in on the extent of his planned socialistic programs, but made it very clear that he is for bigger, more restrictive government and that he's a major policy maker in the War on Productivity.

He wants to rob the productive and, after a small rakeoff--say, 50%--give to the non-productive.

McCain is, too, but has a different gang that he wants to bring into the Castle Court, while the rest of us are slaving away on our subsistence farms. Allow me to suggest reading the L Neil Smith novel Pallas, which describes the Greely Utopian Memorial Project in admirable detail, and the Frank Herbert novel Hellstrom's Hive, which admirably (and frighteningly) describes the socialist ideal, to which both of these candidates subscribe, though they won't admit it, and might not even fully realize it.

McCain wants to continue building the ultimate security state, in which everyone is under surveillance all the time, everything that's not mandatory is prohibited and the military is king.

One of the aspects of this debate that stood out even more than its content, was the fact that every time McCain offered a specific criticism of an Obama policy or an item of his meager record, Obama would, right then and there, interrupt in his own, usually disingenuously, defense. He cut into McCain's time repeatedly and unapologetically, and worse, Jim Lehrer, the alleged moderator, let him do it. At one point, Lehrer relented slightly and said he'd have to balance the time--I don't know if he ever did.

I silently felt as if I should give a bit of a cheer, the first of a couple of times as McCain actually interrupted Obama.

In summary, I don't think I actually learned anything new from this debate. They still seem to be what I've thought they were from the beginning: Obama a cloaked Marxist, McCain a largely unpredictable middle-of-the-roader. Both with the intent of increasing government's role interfering with the lives of the "productive class."

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California