Robin Smith / November 16, 2015

Democrats Completely Miss the Real Threat

The debating trio refused to take on radical Islamic terrorism.

What’s the best way to reduce the exposure of a candidate who’s under a growing criminal investigation by the FBI and who’s clearly known as a liar? You set your debates for Saturday evening when viewership is most certainly to be low.

DNC chief Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is artfully working the plan to shield Hillary Clinton, whose polling numbers consistently trend downward with each public exposure. This cover for the entire Left is done to avoid the confrontation with the reality of seven-plus years of failed socialistic policies.

What did you miss on Saturday night?

All three Democrats seeking the nomination — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley — are committed to chronicling problems through the lens of an expansive government, and they’re offering no actual solutions to any issue at hand: Islamic terrorism, employment, health care, government spending and the deficit, et al.

The network sponsors of this debate, CBS, did a nice job of beginning the broadcast with a moment of silence to acknowledge Friday’s jihadi attack in France. Further, the questions offered were issue-specific and rather substantive.

However, the only substance was from the moderator’s table.

With the first hour focusing almost most entirely on national security and foreign policy, the rhetoric from Clinton was sharp and harsh toward the terror caused by jihadists. Contra Barack Obama’s foolish and unbelievably ill-timed boast that he had “contained” the Islamic State, Clinton proclaimed, “It cannot be contained. It must be defeated.”

Past the sweeping statement, however, the former secretary of state stood firm in refusing to use the terminology “radical Islam” when asked specifically. “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam,” she insisted. “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

So does she believe there are Christian “jihadists” beheading “infidels” and blowing themselves up with suicide vests?

More tellingly, Clinton insisted, “[I]t cannot be an American fight.”

Not one of the three representing Democrats would agree to acknowledge the need to fight and defeat “radical Islam.” In a sane world, such deliberate obfuscation should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to serve as commander in chief.

The declaration of the night that captured the complete folly of the Left on keeping Americans safe came during a similar line of questioning. CBS’s John Dickerson addressed Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders: “You said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?”

“Absolutely,” Sanders responded. “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” As this unfathomably absurd correlation rolled out of the mouth of a poster-child of the Left, Clinton and O'Malley were content to remain silent with no challenge or follow up to press Sanders’ lame-brained statement. Perhaps that’s because this trope accurately reflects the sentiments and priorities of both Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Sheer idiocy.

And they call us the deniers.

There were only a few other significant moments of the debate, set for two hours but which signed off seven minutes early in what appears to be exhaustion of the moderators to pull substance out of the trio.

Sanders confronted Clinton on her treasury of Wall Street contributions, along with other major corporate entities in contrast to his small donor war chest. Madame Secretary’s response to having received large sums from Wall Street fat cats caused quite a stir. She claimed the reason for her financial windfall was the result of her energies to “rebuild” Wall Street in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I represented New York,” she said. “And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”

That might be the first time any candidate for any office has used 9/11 as a justification for fundraising from Wall Street — or that 9/11 was good for New York’s economy, or that political donations were a “rebuke” to terrorists. All of that should go over really well with the Democrats’ “Occupy Wall Street” wing.

For any who endured, seeing Sanders flail in his lack of understanding of economics validated the reason for the failed policies of Democrats and became pitifully funny.

The socialist that caucuses with the Democrats announced, “Real unemployment is 10% because of the lack of disposable income.” Well, most would link the lack of disposable income to the lack of employment. But, you know, when the constituency of the Left is comprised of wards of the state, his “logic” works.

Sanders continued his open support of wealth distribution, as well as conceded that “some level of job loss” would occur with the continued influx of illegal immigrants and the demand for amnesty.

When pressed to give the level of job loss he would be comfortable with due to illegal immigration, the Leftist Pavlov response kicked in as he pivoted to the claim that the minimum wage was the problem, not illegal immigration flooding the labor market with cheap workers.

Clinton won the debate because she is effectively scripted and managed. O'Malley needs to find a gig playing his guitar and exercising his decent wit. Sanders should send his résumé to Vladimir Putin or Raul Castro for employment opportunities.

The danger portrayed by these ideologues whose degrees of separation from the incompetence of Obama are microscopically small should be the unifying rally cry of all on the political center-right.

On a final note, Clinton closed with an awkward reminder that her time is past. “I come from the ‘60s, a long time ago,” she said. Democrats do indeed live in the past, and their way “forward” is truly backward.

Start a conversation using these share links:

Who We Are

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed weekday digest of news analysis, policy and opinion written from the heartland — as opposed to the MSM’s ubiquitous Beltway echo chambers — for grassroots leaders nationwide. More

What We Offer

On the Web

We provide solid conservative perspective on the most important issues, including analysis, opinion columns, headline summaries, memes, cartoons and much more.

Via Email

Choose our full-length Digest or our quick-reading Snapshot for a summary of important news. We also offer Cartoons & Memes on Monday and Alexander’s column on Wednesday.

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!


“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

Copyright © 2021 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

The Patriot Post does not support Internet Explorer. We recommend installing the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, or Google Chrome.