Flying Pink Unicorns

Well, I WAS going to do a companion post listing all of the times when democratic candidates lied or otherwise said insane things. But there were precisely NONE of these. You see, democrats certainly pander shamelessly (ask John Edwards), but we as a party are NOT in the business of boldly saying that 2+2 = 8.75. We do NOT promise energy independence within 5 years. We do NOT claim that reducing tax rates magically INCREASES the amount of revenue to the government.

A good post on Rudy's rantings on this issue can be found here.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/12/rudy-giuliani-is-very-serious-person.html

There are other posts if you care to google. Anyway, since I did listen to the democratic debate, and did take notes, here are some of the mildly (very mildly) interesting comments made:

Richardson advocated a minimum wage for teachers of 40k. That's a LOT of money in some parts of the country. Hmm.

Obama stated that rich people not in farming are getting farm subsidies and family farms are being squeezed. He concluded that we need to cap subsidies and take saved money to invest in conservation/organic crops/nutrition programs. We can save land and improve rural economy.
This is heresy on multiple levels, especially in Iowa! Perfectly sensible of course.

Richardson supports 50 mpg standards, and will reduce co2 emissions by 90%.

Um, it would be nice to know how you'd get from here to there, Bill.

John Edwards: What did America get from free trade with China? Lost jobs and unsafe toys. HEY JOHN, EVER BEEN TO A WAL MART? America got a LOT of much cheaper clothes, toys, electronics, and more. Don't pretend Joe sixpack didn't gain-- that's crazy. This is the closest the dems came to saying something just truly insane. Then, it would be Edwards who said the stupidest thing.

Clinton-- NAFTA SHOULD be changed. Gee, Hillary, how?

Biden-- no trade agreements without environmental and labor protections. Richardson basically agreed.

Ok, so we want more mostly unenforceable window dressing. Its not pretty to see democrats trying to embrace protectionism without embracing it. Embracing it would be honorable. Profoundly stupid, but honorable. But PRETENDING to embrace it? Both stupid and dishonorable. Trade is good, more is better. There are losers. Compensate the losers. That's the most logical approach I think.