Dining with Democrats

We had dinner this past weekend with a couple we haven’t been out with in some time.  He’s retired; she’s a bit younger and still working. 

All went well until the conversation veered toward politics.  Not my doing, BTW. 

It happened because we started talking about how amateurish the local news is here in the early morning.  I said the local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates lost me long ago.  I liked the goofiness of Fox 29 in the morning; the two morning hosts always appear to be  seriously stoned. And Steve Keely, to me, always seems like a caveman they shaved.   

The guy’s wife said she doesn’t see much morning news – cable or otherwise.  She said he’s always glued to Morning Joe on MSNBC when she’s getting ready for work. At night he has Rachel Maddow on – another MSNBC personality, who his wife thinks is just too extreme. 

Between us, I’m sure MSNBC would appreciate his loyalty.  In most ratings day parts MSNBC is in a death match with CNN for distant second or third.  On most days Morning Joe gets about a quarter of the viewers of Fox & Friends in the same time slot.      

That aside, I told them my pattern for national and world news is to check out FoxNews.com, then CNN.com, then NBCNews.com to get a balanced view of what’s really happening.  Somewhere in between all those, I said, is probably what’s true.  I lamented that so many of the cable and broadcast media outlets (not calling out any of them by name) now report what their audiences want to hear, instead of what’s true.  

I thought that was pretty neutral. Apparently not.   

That got him going on Fox and how unfair they were to Obama.  And it went downhill.  

He thinks MSNBC is unbiased. Then again, that’s all he watches. Their reality is his.  If you were fed a nonstop diet of Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, and the like, and never looked at anything else, you would believe what he now believes. I find the same myopia from those who only read the NYT and consider it the most balanced of all the newspapers.

So, based on the self-limited info he’s selected, he believed Obama’s primary problem was that he was a really smart guy, perhaps too idealistic when he took office. Obama’s biggest mistake was that he approached Congress with an open mind and open heart and expected that if he was willing to meet them halfway, they’d reciprocate, he said. 

As far as passing ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, changing Senate rules to bulldoze Republican opposition to Obama appointees, and all of the Executive Actions to bypass Congress, in his mind Obama and the Democrats had no other choice. There was no alternative to get important things done for the country. Obama and the Democrats did what they had to do. 

The recent mid-term elections didn’t matter, he added.  In fact, Republicans gaining control of both House and Senate just made it easier for the Democrats to win those back the next time because Republicans wouldn’t do anything between now and 2016.  

More importantly, that would also cement Hillary’s inevitability as the next President. 

Huh? 

To him, Hillary was the best qualified candidate – one of her key qualifications being that she had lived in the White House with Bill. She had also been a Senator and Secretary of State. So she knew already better than any governor or Senator how government should operate. 

Hillary would sweep the primaries.  Democrats would unite behind her. There would be nobody of substance to run against her from the Republicans.  She would win in a landslide.

But what about her baggage and her age, I asked.  What about the “What difference does it make now?” moment?  What about the fact that a lot of liberals don’t think she is liberal enough?  What about a challenge from Elizabeth Warren?  Or maybe Bernie Sanders? 

More importantly, I asked, if she is so invincible, then how did Obama beat her?

He said Obama won because he was a fresh face.  (I didn’t push back on that but I did think to myself, well, she wasn’t a fresh enough face back then and now she’s six years older.  And those years have not been kind to her. Sorry, but that’s true.)

Anyway, he was so convinced that Hillary would be the next President he was willing to bet on it. So I said how about $100?  He said okay. We shook on it. We'll see who is right.  

I don’t think Hillary makes it through the Democrat primaries, much less wins the Presidency. Obama isn’t going to support her or let her use his OFA organization. Elizabeth Warren – a fresher and younger face and darling of the “true” liberals and class warriors – will attack Hillary as part of the old establishment.  Hillary will come off as old news compared to Warren. 

After Hillary loses a primary of two, my guess is she drops out claiming health issues.  

I could be wrong.  But I don’t think so. 

One thing’s for sure:  My friend is the true face of the Democrat party and typical MSNBC Kool-Aid drinker.  Ill-informed, smugly confident and immune to what’s happening in the world beyond their like-minded friends, and what MSNBC says. Like the NYT critic years ago who couldn’t believe Nixon won because no one she knew voted for him, they only talk to each other.   

Bless his heart, as we would say in the South, but he has lost touch with reality. To think that the mid-term losses were not important is wishful thinking; to think Democrats' resounding defeat somehow guarantees them retaking the Senate and House is pure fantasy.  But that’s what the liberal talking heads on MSNBC are preaching. Tune in sometime and see for yourself.    

Maybe you’ve had the same experience recently with your more liberal friends. They seem to be seething these days; just waiting for the opportunity lash out.  It’s uncomfortable when it happens.  All you can do is say “Wow, it’s getting late …” and make your escape. 

Even if you make a sincere effort to avoid discussing politics, it's increasingly difficult to have a pleasant conversation with many liberal friends anymore. And I suspect they are only going to get worse over the next two years.