"The facts don't matter, Charlie."

The Democratic debate, sponsored by ABC and held in Pennsylvania on April 16 might be the last in this Democratic primary contest. It was mostly a joke -- the first 40 minutes passed without a single question on major issues or policies -- and I watched it mostly for entertainment value. However, there were a few questions in the latter part of the debate that really grated on me -- two in particular.

In both cases, the candidate's answers belied a closed-minded adherence to their stated positions -- even when such the moderator (Charlie Gibson or George Stephanapolous) offered facts that put their stance in question.

Full transcript here.
Video here.

The first question that exemplified this tendency (also the first legitimate question of the debate) was on each candidate's policy about the war in Iraq. Hillary's answer was surprising for it's candidness:

GIBSON: So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why: You know, thankfully we have a system in our country of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice and then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goalposts when it comes to Iraq.

"Yes, Charlie, even if this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq and erase all the gains that our soldiers have made in the past 8 months, I'd still do it." One assumes that she similarly wouldn't be swayed to change her mind if military commanders told her that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would perish in ethnic violence or if portions of Iraq would turn into al-Qaeda and Iran-run terrorist safe havens.

That answer is, in a nutshell, why for the past three decades the American people have not trusted Democrats with national security.

Obama offered a variation of the same answer. You know, I was wondering how the Democrats were going to rationalize the far-left stance they've been taking on Iraq during the primaries to the wider public in the general election. If this is really the explanation the Democrats have settled on to explain their irresponsible and potentially disastrous Iraq policy -- Yes, our policies could lead to the collapse of Iraq, a humanitarian disaster, and the loss of everything our troops have fought so hard to gain in the past year, but by God, at least we're proving that we have civilian control of the military in this country! -- I seriously doubt the American people are going to buy it.

Hillary continued:

...And I am convinced that it is in America's best interest, it is in the best interest of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interest of Iraq, that upon taking office, I will ask the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days.

Really? I'd love to hear Senator Clinton explain how "the destabilization of Iraq" and the reverse of "all the gains we've made" in the past year can possibly be "in the best interest of Iraq," much less America or our military.

Charlie Gibson pressed Hillary, making sure he'd heard her answer right:

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?

SENATOR CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing as well, is -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world.

... So the bottom line for me is, we don't know what will happen as we withdraw.

"...and I don't really care" might as well be the end of that sentence. Clinton has the audacity to actually admit that she "doesn't know" what the outcome of her stated policy would be. In fact, she admits that one of the "many different scenarios" might be the destabilization of Iraq and the collapse of the democratically-elected government. It might be a mass ethnic cleansing and bloodshed on a scale far beyond anything we've seen so far. It might be the establishment of an al-Qaeda safe haven. But, incomprehensibly, the outcome apparently doesn't matter to her. She's going to go ahead with a withdrawal regardless of the facts on the ground -- consequences be damned.

And that is that kind of immature, irresponsible attitude towards American national security that will continue to doom the candidates of the modern-day Democratic Party.

The second question was on taxes, and this one went to Obama:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

...GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not.

Huh? I find it really hard to grasp Obama's logic here: Yes, it's true that lowering the tax rate on capital gains (among others) leads to increased tax revenues for the government. But I'm going to raise taxes on capital gains, because these lower rates are just "not fair!" Even if raising taxes takes more money out of the pockets of 100 million Americans who have invested in the stock market, well, that's justified because it's only fair that they give a larger percentage of their earnings to the government! Even if that higher tax rate leads the government to have less tax revenue, well, at least it'll be more fair!

And when confronted by Gibson again with the fact that history has shown that lower tax rates on capital gains lead to higher revenues, Obama responds that "that might happen, or it might not." (As Gibson pointed out, it has.) That's strangely similar to Hillary's contention that she "just doesn't know" what will happen if we pull troops out of Iraq, but perhaps even more concerning: Obama was presented with hard historical facts about the issue, but just disregarded them.

Blind adherence to liberal ideology that flies in the face of facts, reality and practical solutions is not really the "change" I envision in Washington. I was thinking of something more along the lines of a candidate who "will not allow dogma to override common sense," and whose stances on policy prove that he means it.