As the most recent Democratic debate proved, the Republicans have no monopoly on pandering to a base. While they congenially agreed on a number of issues, the big three differentiators they chose to highlight were Wall Street influence, healthcare and gun control.

1) Wall Street Reform When faced with the charge that Clinton was too cozy with Wall Street, she immediately tried to transform it into an indictment of Obama. She said:

Well, there’s no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that. But where we disagree is the comments that Senator Sanders has made that don’t just affect me, I can take that, but he’s criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street, and President Obama has led our country out of the great recession.

This feigned moral indignation is a favorite tactic of Clinton to deflect criticism. I can’t help but think of Otter’s speech in the film Animal House where he uses the same tactic to conflate charges against his fraternity with an attack on The United States of America. O’Malley didn’t let her get away with it:

“In prior debates I’ve heard you even bring up — I mean, now you bring up President Obama here in South Carolina in defense of the fact of your cozy relationship with Wall Street.

In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 9/11 victims to defend it. The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you do not go as far as reining in Wall Street as I would.

And the fact of the matter is, the people of America deserve to have a president that’s on their side, protecting the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street. And we’re just as vulnerable today.”

 Clinton tried to assuage the rebuke from O’Malley by citing support from a number of experts: “Yes, well, first of all — first of all, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, others have all endorsed my plan. Secondly, we have Dodd-Frank. It gives us the authority already to break up big banks that pose…” When you look at what the experts actually said, “endorsed” is too strong a verb. “Support” or “said positive things about” would be more accurate.

2) Paying for Healthcare Sanders rolled out the details of how he would finance a single-payer healthcare system only hours before the debate, so it’s difficult to judge the soundness of his arguments yet. Still, two aspects of the debate merit attention. The first is where Mitchell asks Sanders if he is breaking his word on raising taxes: “On Meet the Press on December 20th, you said that you would only raise taxes on the middle class to pay for family leave. And, having said that, now you say you’re going to raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare as well. Is that breaking your word?” Sanders reluctantly admits that it is technically a tax increase, but points out: “So, instead of paying $10,000 dollars to Blue Cross, or Blue Shield, yes, some middle class families would be paying slightly more in taxes, but the result would be that that middle class family would be saving some $5,000 dollars in healthcare costs. A little bit more in taxes, do away with private health insurance premiums. It’s a pretty good deal.” One of the problems with the quasi debate forum resides in what Republicans in earlier debates called “gotcha journalism.” That is, the focus centers on the technicality rather than the substance. Sanders gave an excellent example in the 3rd debate when he pointed out that funding paid family and medical leave would cost families an additional $1.61 per week. It’s unfortunate he didn’t summon another such precise example to explain his single payer proposal. So did Sanders propose a tax increase on the middle class? Yes. Would the net effect on income be positive or negative? Positive.

The second, related aspect of this example occurred when Clinton asserted: “But I will tell you exactly how I pay for everything I’ve proposed.” When you actually look at how Clinton proposes to fund her initiatives, “exactly” turns out to be overly precise. There are vague references to “business tax reforms” and “cutting deductions.”

3) Reducing gun violence. Because Clinton has frequently portrayed herself as an extension of Obama’s presidency, I’ll reference some of the current administration’s rhetoric as well. While again pandering to their base, all the Democratic candidates alienate many general election voters in three ways: First, their verbiage. They have attempted to co-opt each proposal they introduce as a “common-sense” approach to reducing gun violence. In fact, in his daily press briefing Press Secretary Josh Ernest characterized the President’s soon-to-be unveiled proposals as “common-sense” no less than twenty times. Their strategy is to make any criticism of the President’s executive actions the rhetorical equivalent of asking, “Have you stopped beating your dog yet?” Gun control measures are also strategically termed “gun safety” measures.

Second, since I want to focus on the words instead of the person, I’ll amend the often quoted, but apocryphal phrase “Better to remain silent and appear to be a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,” to “Better to remain silent and appear to be foolish than to speak and remove all doubt.” Despite declarations of their fond memories of hunting with dad and early experiences with guns, the candidates’ statements about guns ring hollow, lack narrative fidelity and express a basic ignorance of firearms when most gun owners hear them. Let’s begin with President Obama’s early remarks during the Town Hall on gun violence. He said: “…there’s the reality that there are neighborhoods around the country where it is easier for a 12- or a 13-year-old to purchase a gun and cheaper than it is for them to get a book.” Really? Where are those neighborhoods? Early in the debate, O’Malley delivers the guaranteed applause line: “I’ve never met a self respecting deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer.” Putting aside the fact that a .223 cartridge is a legally sanctioned hunting round in most states (not that your typical gun control advocate could tell the difference between a .223 and a .22), perhaps an AR-15 is what the hunter chooses to use. After all, does a soccer mom need a low-MPG, high-carbon emitting SUV to make a trip to school to pick up kids that find riding the school bus an inconvenience? Does someone need to charge $100,000 per speaking engagement?

Third, the candidates generally fail to distinguish among accidents, suicides and crimes committed with guns when they cite the figure of 33,000 gun deaths per year (the last constitutes approximately 1/3 of guns deaths each year). So in the end, it’s probably not the NRA having Congress in their pockets that prevents any meaningful gun legislation, but instead a failure of persuasion on the part of politicians to make people believe they know what they’re talking about and can make a significant distance.

And no, it’s not always worth doing if you can “just save one life.” Watch for the next posting on specious arguments and you’ll see what I mean.