I just finished watching it. I'm a little late-it's the luxury of DVR technology which lets you watch at your own pace.
1. Rachel Maddow did a great job. I liked this format, though it probably only works because there are only three candidates. I liked the questions she asked. She continued to emphasize the issue that the Dems have to figure out how to fight back at the state level.
She also asked Martin O'Malley a rather perspicacious question regarding climate change. She ticked off the number of states that could be hurt economically by a move off fossil fuels. She also suggested to Bernie that Keystone was not the biggest environmental issue in the world.
2. Ok now time to grade each candidate.
A. O'Malley went first. I thought he was fine but didn't really set the world on fire. While in some ways this should be a welcome setting for the candidates to be able to expand more on their views and agenda, he didn't seem to me to exploit it as well as he could have.
Part of it is just stylistic. I don't think he said much wrong but his performance wasn't great. It would only be clear to me how so-so he was after hearing Bernie then Hillary.
I don't think he really did a good job on her question about why the Dems struggle so much in the South. I continue to like O'Malley's focus on gun control as there is no bigger social problem in America today.
B. Bernie was next. Once his interview started it stood out that he was getting lots of cheers. O'Malley didn't get a lot. Bernie did better than O'Malley. He even got some jokes at the end about Larry David and underwear. I liked his answer that his dream job if he weren't in politics would be to be President of CNN
As usual, his natural tendency and preference is to give his usual Jesus and the money changers kind of stump speech. He did seem aware that he had to work on style a little more and was better in that regard.
He certainly didn't do a good job on gun control. I found it almost unbelievable that he again said that We have to stop shouting over guns. .He did preface that with the observation that Hillary Clinton has misconstrued when I say this but. .
At least he was a little ware. But he didn't change his approach at all. Rachel pointed out that he had voted to allow guns on to Amtrak and his answer seemed to be that this was fine as you can do this on the airlines.
C. Hillary simply owned this the moment she got out. She nailed a lot of things. As she says President Obama got us out of the ditch and we're standing but not running yet. And what we need is a new New Deal. That is in my mind just a great line-a new New Deal.
She talked about the importance of voting-she had a gentle admonishment that Democrats need to vote in off year elections.
She talked about attack on the right to vote and hit a great point on the sudden rise of death rates for downscale whites.
I thought she hit most every cylinder.
3. Time for grades. O'Malley gets a C, Bernie a B, Hillary an A.
Here is an analysis of her discussion of criminal justice at the forum.
"Hillary Clinton spoke passionately about criminal justice reform at the First in the South Democratic Presidential forum moderated by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Friday night, even as she defended the death penalty in some instances."
A lot of people would get on her about the death penalty but it makes sense to me. I mean I can't see a good reason to let certain terrorists or mass shooters live like in Boston or South Carolina.
It's not an issue I get terribly exercised about but her position is largely in line with my own.
Overall, I can't wait to vote for her November. 2016. That's all.
1. Rachel Maddow did a great job. I liked this format, though it probably only works because there are only three candidates. I liked the questions she asked. She continued to emphasize the issue that the Dems have to figure out how to fight back at the state level.
She also asked Martin O'Malley a rather perspicacious question regarding climate change. She ticked off the number of states that could be hurt economically by a move off fossil fuels. She also suggested to Bernie that Keystone was not the biggest environmental issue in the world.
2. Ok now time to grade each candidate.
A. O'Malley went first. I thought he was fine but didn't really set the world on fire. While in some ways this should be a welcome setting for the candidates to be able to expand more on their views and agenda, he didn't seem to me to exploit it as well as he could have.
Part of it is just stylistic. I don't think he said much wrong but his performance wasn't great. It would only be clear to me how so-so he was after hearing Bernie then Hillary.
I don't think he really did a good job on her question about why the Dems struggle so much in the South. I continue to like O'Malley's focus on gun control as there is no bigger social problem in America today.
B. Bernie was next. Once his interview started it stood out that he was getting lots of cheers. O'Malley didn't get a lot. Bernie did better than O'Malley. He even got some jokes at the end about Larry David and underwear. I liked his answer that his dream job if he weren't in politics would be to be President of CNN
As usual, his natural tendency and preference is to give his usual Jesus and the money changers kind of stump speech. He did seem aware that he had to work on style a little more and was better in that regard.
He certainly didn't do a good job on gun control. I found it almost unbelievable that he again said that We have to stop shouting over guns. .He did preface that with the observation that Hillary Clinton has misconstrued when I say this but. .
At least he was a little ware. But he didn't change his approach at all. Rachel pointed out that he had voted to allow guns on to Amtrak and his answer seemed to be that this was fine as you can do this on the airlines.
C. Hillary simply owned this the moment she got out. She nailed a lot of things. As she says President Obama got us out of the ditch and we're standing but not running yet. And what we need is a new New Deal. That is in my mind just a great line-a new New Deal.
She talked about the importance of voting-she had a gentle admonishment that Democrats need to vote in off year elections.
She talked about attack on the right to vote and hit a great point on the sudden rise of death rates for downscale whites.
I thought she hit most every cylinder.
3. Time for grades. O'Malley gets a C, Bernie a B, Hillary an A.
Here is an analysis of her discussion of criminal justice at the forum.
"Hillary Clinton spoke passionately about criminal justice reform at the First in the South Democratic Presidential forum moderated by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Friday night, even as she defended the death penalty in some instances."
"The former secretary of state recently met with the mothers of black people killed by police and gun violence, and spoke movingly of the stories they told her."
"I mean, why? It makes no sense why that happened," Clinton said of the shooting of Walter Scott, who was shot and killed as he was running away from police in North Charleston.
"At the same time, she defended being the only Democratic presidential candidate to support the death penalty. While she said she wants to dramatically restrict its use, she said it would appropriate in some extreme cases, like terrorism cases like the Boston Marathon bombing or the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina."
"Clinton said gun violence in general is a problem, but that called it especially disturbing when it comes from someone in authority, like police officers, who should be held to a higher standard."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-talks-criminal-justice-reform-forum-n459131A lot of people would get on her about the death penalty but it makes sense to me. I mean I can't see a good reason to let certain terrorists or mass shooters live like in Boston or South Carolina.
It's not an issue I get terribly exercised about but her position is largely in line with my own.
Overall, I can't wait to vote for her November. 2016. That's all.
Regarding the guns on trains thing: I've ridden Amtrak exactly once in my life. As I recall there was a compartment to store luggage only accessible from doors that opened outside the train... in other words, the baggage there was not accessible to the passengers while the train was moving, much like the baggage in an airplane. Am I wrong about that? I seem to remember standing at the station we disembarked at waiting for them to open those doors so we could get our luggage.
ReplyDeleteMaddow seemed to imply that Bernie voted for a bill that would have let people access their guns and ammo from inside the moving train. I was surprised he didn't push back on that given my memory of the situation. Maybe she was correct (in which case that would be stupid for Bernie to have done), but if it was a law only permitting transport in this outside compartment, I think he should have pushed back.
It is indeed true (like he said) that you can fly with guns, as long as you check them like any other kind of luggage. Now I think there's a bit more to it than just walking in the airport with a gun in your luggage, but I personally know people who've done that, including a woman I know (the sister of a crazy boss of mine) who had no intention of ever doing such a thing, but she was put in a jam when her brother was declared mentally unfit to be custodian of his guns any longer, and she had to fly down from Seattle and take care of the mess (not just the gun mess) that he'd made of his life. The court had made her the custodian of all those guns and she had to sort it all out. I'm pretty sure she flew them back to Seattle and then got rid of them somehow up there.
It's not just that one vote of his anyway. He voted against the Brady bill. Full stop.
ReplyDeleteReally if you voted against that you're weak on gun control.He again started with the 'stop the shouting' thing which is ironic coming from him-on every other issue he' wants to shout.
But on gun control suddenly,it's 'Let's just calm down.'
I think the Iraq thing is a little overdone. I mean Hillary and Obama debated Iraq in 2008. Bernie trying to run on her vote again doesn't work.
As she pointed out at the last debate Obama disagreed with her on her vote but still thought her fit to basically be the QB of his foreign policy team.
When you look at the lives lost to domestic gun violence since 2004 it dwarfs the numbers we've lost in Iraq by a 10 to 1 ratio.
For people like Andy Parker who lost his daughter in a shootout at her job at a news station in Virginia you don't want to stop shouting.
Bernie also voted with W to shield gun manufacturers in 2005 and to make it harder for the FBI to collect information to enable them to shut down unscrupulous gun dealers in 2007.
I have to admit I feel very strongly that we need someone strong on guns, not just someone who is ok considering he was from Vermont.
Bernie tries to talk in these black and white terms on issues like Keystone-which was never a big environmental issue to start with but a political one.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/keystone-xl-wasnt-about-jobs-or-the-climate-it-was-all-politics/
But when it comes to gun control then he admits that it's not always black and white-that there are political factors as well.
As to the Amtrak law here's my question-if it was as innocuous as you think it was then why was it necessary to pass a law on this anyway to make it like the airlines?
ReplyDeleteWhy was a law necessary to establish transport in an outside compartment? This would suggest that it was against the law to do this before. You'd have to show that this law was wrong.
That most Democrats didn't support the law makes me skeptical.
But as you see from my above comment, this was not an isolated case for Bernie voting for weaker gun control than we already have.
I tend to take Andy Parker as more of an authority than Bernie supporters on gun control-mostly they seem clueless on the whole subject.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Parker, Bernie has a terrible record on guns.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/andy-parker-bernie-sanders-has-terrible.html
Being a gun enthusiast, I would probably be considerably to the right of all three of the candidates, so Bernie's position (to the right of the other two) doesn't bother me at all.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not going to do what the NRA does and insult your intelligence... I think if guns were banned altogether there would be a LOT less homicides and needless deaths in the US.
But like you reminded me (appropriately) this is a nation of God believers... so too is it a nation of gun owners (though perhaps to a lesser extent).
I suspect gun owners can be put in different classes:
1. The Bill Maher gun owner. Bill doesn't like guns and he wishes he didn't feel like he HAS to own one, but he does feel that way, so he does own one. I doubt there are many people in this category.
2. The hunter/trap shooter/target shooter/plinker. One of my dad's colleagues on the Navy base was in the category: a family man. Catholic. Engineer. He enjoyed going bird hunting his whole life. He owned a number of shotguns and one deer rifle (that someone gave to him). He had no interest in hunting deer. He had no interest in handguns, and I'm sure he had no interest in assault rifles. He was in favor of banning handguns because they were designed specifically to kill people. I'm sure he would have felt the same way about assault rifles. But I'm sure he would have not wanted to see shotguns and probably not deer rifles banned. I think that's basically the way it is in Canada. I put trap/skeet/sporting clays shooter in this category because they don't necessarily hunt, but their guns are no more dangerous than are the hunter's guns. Same goes for the target shooter or plinker.
3. Mixed use. That's like I used to be. I started off being interested in hunting, so I obtained a shotgun at a young age (12?). My dad had a .22 rifle, but he never used it. He wasn't really interested in guns or hunting, but he went with my half brother and myself a couple of times. My half brother bought him a shotgun. But I always was interested in ALL guns for their own sake, and I especially liked the ones that had a high capacity magazine and I had no problems with handguns. I literally played with such guns as a kid!... my half bro would drive up from San Bernardino and maybe leave a half dozen guns or so for me to play with... literally once he brought a paper shopping bag full of handguns... Lol... and yes, I was still in Jr. High at the time. My parents apparently had enough confidence in me that they thought I wouldn't kill myself (or them) with them. We lived out in the boonies after we moved off the base, and I could literally shoot them right outside the house.
4. The fanatic. That would ALMOST be me now, except for the fact that I try to keep a realistic outlook. You won't find many fanatics typing a sentence like I did above ("Yes, banning all guns will significantly bring the murder and accidental death rate down."). So consider me a biased only partially deluded realist, but with a fanatic's sensibilities. Lol. The ONLY reason I have any guns any more is pretty much because they are for killing people... those are the kind I like. I haven't been hunting in decades, nor do I wish to any longer. I do somewhat fall in the trap shooter/plinker category, because I do that sometimes. Actually I rarely ever go shooting anymore. Maybe once a year. For one thing, there's no real convenient place to go around here. There are a couple of outside ranges, but they're closed half the year due to fire danger. So I'm a post-fanatic maybe. I really should get rid of my guns... however because I specifically purchased almost exclusively the ones that have been banned for resale in this state, I can't! LOL.
Delete5. The fanatic+: I'll add this category just because this is the person who is completely deluded with NRA and gun right's propaganda. They are the ones who think the solution to every problem is more guns. They twist everything in their minds so that guns never cause any problems and the only way to solve any problem is by adding more guns. To me they sound just like creationists or Christian apologists arguing for taking the Bible literally. Crazy!
So, I guess if I were running for president, I'd suggest only adopting the absolutely most popular Federal laws possible: improving background checks, closing any loopholes, outlawing gifting guns from one person to another. I might even go beyond that a bit and insist on adding serial numbers to items like high capacity magazines so that those too could be traced and laws could be made regarding where they are allowed to be owned.
I do think I'd leave the less popular measures up to the states.
I might even propose a constitutional amendment to clarify the mess the 2nd amendment created, and I'd put things in there to try to please both sides: The amendment would explicitly guarantee that states and municipalities had the right to enact whatever gun control measures they saw fit. So if a city like San Francisco wants to ban handguns... or perhaps all guns, then so be it. That's their right.
But if a state like Wyoming has never had any sort of problem whatsoever, even though 80% of the citizens own AR-15s or AK-47s... then so be it. They can continue to have very liberal guns laws. (I make that statistic up BTW!).
DeleteNow I know what your objection is going to be: that these guns can move across state boundaries very easily. And that's a good argument, but it's also an empirical argument, and I guess we could look at the data to see. Making it a federal crime to do so for the purpose of violating another state's laws could be a good incentive against it.
I don't have a strong feel for just how pervasive gun culture is across the nation, but I'm going to suggest that there are a lot of people in the mixed use, fanatic or fanatic+ category.
They will view new Federal laws as a direct assault on something that's very important to them. Now granted, what's important to them boils down to a dangerous hobby, and I agree that should not be placed above more pressing concerns, still that's the way they're going to view it. It's equivalent to a religion with them.
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that my local governments will eventually force me to do something with my dangerous toys. But that's not where a lot of other people are. They will want to fight and perhaps they're essentially single issue voters on this.
I suspect the Democrats could have a better chance taking back state and local governments if they could find a way to be "states rights" on this issue. And I don't mean by that that they abandon the issue altogether (as I've stated above).
BTW, one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen is an issue of VICE or This American Life (they both did shows on this, so I can't recall which one it was now), concerning all the killings in Chicago amongst high school aged kids especially. And the worst part was that people (white people mostly) would come from rural areas where guns were harder to obtain and sell them the guns. I don't know if that was legal, but it definitely should NOT be legal! That was truly disgusting. That would be evidence against local laws having much good ... however, I had the impression from the show that these brazen arms dealers were able to get away with this from some other lax laws.
I just can't help feeling like if we could somehow defang this gun issue, it would let some air out of the anti-government crowd. I don't think they are as truly anti-government as they say, but it's gotten mixed up in their minds with the government coming to take their toys away.
DeleteTotal gun prohibition did work in Scotland. But I wouldn't even talk about this here.
DeleteAll we need are some pretty tame things like a waiting period, a gun registry, and I believe licenses.
I don't see why gun ownership should be easier than car ownership.
So Dems just have to renounce any new gun control measures no matter how small or reasonable in exchange?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a small price to pay.LOL.
Trouble is that many liberals like me believe this is a pressing social problem which makes such a trade unthinkable.
We have over 300,000 gun deaths since 2004 in the US. We are averaging more than one gun death a day for 2015.
Something really needs to be done.
I've spoken to some gun nuts on Tiwtter-unfortunately. You're certainly not in the category-LOL.
ReplyDeleteThey simply see any move no matter how small or basic as a slippery slope to
'Taking my guns' as if this is the only thing that matters.
Such rational ignorance is rather vile.
"So, I guess if I were running for president, I'd suggest only adopting the absolutely most popular Federal laws possible: improving background checks, closing any loopholes, outlawing gifting guns from one person to another. I might even go beyond that a bit and insist on adding serial numbers to items like high capacity magazines so that those too could be traced and laws could be made regarding where they are allowed to be owned."
ReplyDelete"I do think I'd leave the less popular measures up to the states."
"I might even propose a constitutional amendment to clarify the mess the 2nd amendment created, and I'd put things in there to try to please both sides: The amendment would explicitly guarantee that states and municipalities had the right to enact whatever gun control measures they saw fit. So if a city like San Francisco wants to ban handguns... or perhaps all guns, then so be it. That's their right."
My only trouble with all this is that I don't think such small measures will actually fix the problem by itself.
My belief is that the only way anything ever gets done about gun violence is at the federal level.
Not to go Ben Carson-but in this case the slavery analogy is somewhat apt-not that I think a gun owner is anywhere close morally to a slave owner.
But slavery was never going to end on a state by state basis and gun control will never happen this way either-you already gave part of the answer with the point that guns will simply be bought in the liberal states and shipped to the more stricter states.
The trouble with the whine of gun owners is that it's not just about them. This is something with massive externalities
But anyway, I don't see how Dems going states rights would help them politically anyway.
It's at the state level they are losing not the federal level.
If Hillary wins talking as tough on gun control as she has, this might show that the NRA is a paper tiger.