SURRENDER MONKEYS GATHER IN VEGAS

The three little defeatists congregated for a debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams moderated and Natalie Morales read a few email questions for the MSNBC broadcast. Only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards participated, Dennis Kucinich having lost a lawsuit to force his participation. Each round of questioning provided examples of why these candidates are wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

The issue of race came up first, having been the hottest point of contention between Clinton and Obama and their surrogates over the past week. Billary claimed that all three of the candidates were here partially as a result of the civil rights movements of the sixties. Perhaps an argument can be made for the Obama and Clinton on that point, but Edwards? I'm pretty sure the movement wasn't intended to help wealthy white personal injury attorneys. In any event, it's delightful to see the Dems wasting time arguing about Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson instead of addressing substantive issues like war and the economy. Everyone agreed they should all come together and hug and move on to other things. Even after that, Russert picked the scab for another round asking about candidate accountability for the statements of campaign spokesmen and Obama's admitted past drug use. Obama was asked about the difference between the poll numbers and actual results in New Hampshire, but no one could admit that white liberals lied about voting for a black candidate. The idea of closet racism among their own kind is too much for the liberal media to handle. Good stuff, but it went nowhere. The key is that the Dems pander constantly to minority groups to get elected, but then once in office fail to take promised action and rarely appoint minorities to high positions.

The discussion then turned to the President's role as chief executive. Obama laid out his vision of the President as some sort of national mood doctor. Hillary went after alleged Bush failures, oblivious to the fact the Bush isn't running again. None of the three can claim any executive experience at all, despite Hillary's assertions that being the wife of an executive counts. Under that logic, the wife of a plumber is qualified to fix a major leak.

The bulk of the evening focused on the economy and the Democrat socialist vision of how to deal with it. Whatever the economic scenario, the liberal answer is a big, expensive government program and the bureaucracy that goes with it. That applies to just about every other subject from health care to guns, but it's especially evident when they discuss the economy. In the Democrat reality, the federal government intrudes heavily into and controls the engines of economic growth. Instead of leaving business free to operate within reasonable safety restraints on its own, the Dems instead see a government reflex natural to each and every movement of the economic indicators. The evil nature of corporations and the unadulterated greed of capitalism become the bogeymen they use to justify an overreaching federal government. Voters are supposed to forget that big federal programs eventually become ineffective because of mismanagement and misspending.

The candidates had a chance to question each other, and all three blew the opportunity. Edwards asked Obama about the money behind his campaign. Hillary asked Obama to cosponsor an unconstitutional bill with her to limit the President's authority in reaching a deal with the Iraqi government on an extended American presence. Obama questioned Edwards about who could be faster to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. The junior Senator from Illinois claimed the recent bombing of a hotel in Khabul indicated wider problems, completely misrepresenting the situation and proving he hasn't reviewed the casualty figures for the terrorists in Afghanistan lately. All the Democraps constantly and irritatingly refer to the American presence in Iraq as an "occupation", and I vehemently condemn the use of that term in reference to United States forces. American forces do not occupy, they liberate. The Dems also whine about the money being spent, something that is also highly offensive. Money should not be an issue when it comes to war: if the battle is already engaged, our men and women in uniform deserve more than to have liberals at home complaining about finances.

One small, measured kudos goes to John Edwards for supporting additional benefits including job placement for military veterans. Unfortunately it's part of his big government answer to all dilemmas. All the candidates vowed to enforce requirements on universities accepting federal funding to allow military recruiters and offer ROTC, a dubious promise at best. Democrats act like they suddenly need hemorrhoid surgery whenever forced to offer support for the military. They say what they must to get elected, but one senses they don't really mean it. It rings hollow from the party of surrender to terrorism.

After tussling on Yucca Mountain and nuclear power, the three stooges progressed to illegal immigration. It at once became clear that the Dems are united in their support for a blanket amnesty. They mask it with phrases like "comprehensive reform" and "earned citizenship". That translates to "amnesty for those already here". Obama pointed out his work with Ted Kennedy and John McCain on the failed amnesty bill, not exactly a ringing endorsement on either side.

A question about the rates of black male dropouts triggered yet another big government response from Obama. Billions of dollars and "programs" are desperately needed. Hillary once again raised her "35 years of experience" argument, and it's just pathetic. The woman did nothing before becoming Senator. Being the spouse does not qualify one to do the spouse's job at any level. Sipping tea with the wives of other world leaders is not considered diplomatic experience. Give it up.

The Democratic view of the Second Amendment was revealed by a query about the communist group trying to undermine ownership rights "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They all agreed the assault weapons ban needs to be resurrected, showing they believe guns cause crime. Yeah, like flies cause garbage, right?

The substantive policy differences between them can be measure in microns. They all support a federal government bloated from higher taxes interfering regularly in our daily lives. They all are in a rush to surrender in Iraq despite solid and undeniable evidence of substantial progress on the ground. None of them have executive or military experience. All three have been legislators who have spent the bulk of their terms campaigning for higher offices. Tax increases, burdensome regulation of business, and withdrawal from the realities of the war are all part of their agenda. Whichever one of these three is nominated, the GOP candidate will have plenty of ammunition from their statements and policies. Let's hope the Republican nominee has the ability to use that ammo in an effective manner (see Fred Thompson).