Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A modest proposal
Watching last night's debate, I found myself incredibly bored after about, oh, 35 minutes. I resisted the urge to read a book and kept both eyes on my boob tube until the debate ended. When it was over, a friend called and asked, "What'd you think." The first word out of my mouth was ... "Draw."
If you're a Republican and you think McCain won, you're delusional. If you're a Democrat and you think Obama won, you're an idiot. If I didn't know better, I'd think that those two -- am I a racist by including Obama in a "those two" reference? -- got together before the debate and agreed to participate in a joint effort to provide relief for insomniacs from Maine to California.
Who "won" ...? Neither. It was a draw. The Los Angeles Times, which hasn't been Republican-friendly since Richard Nixon was running for U.S. Senate, agrees: "In debate, McCain and Obama battle mostly to a draw."
That said, most post-debate polls have given Obama the edge in last night's debate. Not surprising. Obama's a good-looking guy. Put him in an open-collared shirt and a suit coat, and put an expensive watch on his arm, and he'd be picture-perfect for an ad in GQ or Esquire. Thus, he'd win a post-debate poll if all he did during said debate was show up and start spouting his favorite movie lines ...
Moderator: Sen. Obama, some of your critics have suggested that you are a socialist. Is this true?
Obama: Are you talkin' to me? ARE YOU TALKIN' TO ME?!
Moderator: You're right. That was an unfair question. I apologize to you and your family. Please know I AM NOT a racist!
I'd be willing to bet that some 90 percent of folks who gave Obama the win last night couldn't list three specific points he made with which they agree. Hell, ask the post-debate pro-Obama crowd to be be specific about anything their chosen candidate said, you'll get just as many "Uhs," "Ahs," "Ums," and "Ohs" as Obama unleashes in a typical 10-minute speech.
Before I get to my main point, let me just say: Obama said some really, really stupid -- stupid and naive -- things last night. For example:
Obama suggested that we can put Vladimir Putin in his place by "conserving energy" ... which I'm sure means a mass effort to keep tires properly inflated. Sorry, Barry, but the best way to deal with Russia is (a) sending arms to Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states; increased domestic production of oil and natural gas; and a strengthening of the U.S. dollar. Russia has staked its entire "still-a-superpower" claim on high energy prices. Sniffing Nancy Pelosi's throne and/or heeding Al Gore's advice ain't gonna reduce energy prices today, tomorrow, or, never.
Obama also stated that only a handful small businesses would be affected by his tax-raising scheme. Leaving aside the fact the last President of the U.S. who raised taxes during very, very economically precarious times was Herbert Hoover, Barry don't know what in the **** he's talking about. Some 20 million tax-filers claim business income and file as individuals. If even half are not legitimate businesses, as some pro-Obama outfits claim (see factcheck.org), 10 million small businesses ain't a "handful," indeed.
Now, modern presidential debates are a joke. Style always -- always -- wins out over substance, and it's a direct result of our image-driven culture. Think about it: If a tie-weaing, Brooks Brothers-clad John McCain appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, et al. discussing marginal tax rates, yield-curves, and debt ratios, and a khaki-clad, Polo shirt-wearing Obama appeared on Oprah discussing how he and his wife have every-other-day debates about whether toilet paper should be hung over or under, whom do you think would win a "Best Potential Leader" poll? McCain? What are you, an idiot?
That said, I have a modest proposal, and it's as follows:
There shall be no fewer than 10 debates between the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates.
No presidential or vice-presidential debate - in perpetuity - will be visually broadcast. Television stations and Internet sites who "cover" each debate shall visually-offer campaign Web site addresses only.
Think nobody will pay attention to such debates? Think they're ratings poison? First of all, back in 2000, millions of Americans tuned into a static TV screen when the U.S. Supreme Court heard Bush v. Gore. So much for nobody tuning in.
And second, any individual who can't find the time to listen/pay attention to one of ten presidential debates -- well, we should start thinking about how we can keep him or her from entering a voting booth. Wait. That's another proposal altogether.
If you're a Republican and you think McCain won, you're delusional. If you're a Democrat and you think Obama won, you're an idiot. If I didn't know better, I'd think that those two -- am I a racist by including Obama in a "those two" reference? -- got together before the debate and agreed to participate in a joint effort to provide relief for insomniacs from Maine to California.
Who "won" ...? Neither. It was a draw. The Los Angeles Times, which hasn't been Republican-friendly since Richard Nixon was running for U.S. Senate, agrees: "In debate, McCain and Obama battle mostly to a draw."
That said, most post-debate polls have given Obama the edge in last night's debate. Not surprising. Obama's a good-looking guy. Put him in an open-collared shirt and a suit coat, and put an expensive watch on his arm, and he'd be picture-perfect for an ad in GQ or Esquire. Thus, he'd win a post-debate poll if all he did during said debate was show up and start spouting his favorite movie lines ...
Moderator: Sen. Obama, some of your critics have suggested that you are a socialist. Is this true?
Obama: Are you talkin' to me? ARE YOU TALKIN' TO ME?!
Moderator: You're right. That was an unfair question. I apologize to you and your family. Please know I AM NOT a racist!
I'd be willing to bet that some 90 percent of folks who gave Obama the win last night couldn't list three specific points he made with which they agree. Hell, ask the post-debate pro-Obama crowd to be be specific about anything their chosen candidate said, you'll get just as many "Uhs," "Ahs," "Ums," and "Ohs" as Obama unleashes in a typical 10-minute speech.
Before I get to my main point, let me just say: Obama said some really, really stupid -- stupid and naive -- things last night. For example:
Obama suggested that we can put Vladimir Putin in his place by "conserving energy" ... which I'm sure means a mass effort to keep tires properly inflated. Sorry, Barry, but the best way to deal with Russia is (a) sending arms to Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states; increased domestic production of oil and natural gas; and a strengthening of the U.S. dollar. Russia has staked its entire "still-a-superpower" claim on high energy prices. Sniffing Nancy Pelosi's throne and/or heeding Al Gore's advice ain't gonna reduce energy prices today, tomorrow, or, never.
Obama also stated that only a handful small businesses would be affected by his tax-raising scheme. Leaving aside the fact the last President of the U.S. who raised taxes during very, very economically precarious times was Herbert Hoover, Barry don't know what in the **** he's talking about. Some 20 million tax-filers claim business income and file as individuals. If even half are not legitimate businesses, as some pro-Obama outfits claim (see factcheck.org), 10 million small businesses ain't a "handful," indeed.
Now, modern presidential debates are a joke. Style always -- always -- wins out over substance, and it's a direct result of our image-driven culture. Think about it: If a tie-weaing, Brooks Brothers-clad John McCain appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, et al. discussing marginal tax rates, yield-curves, and debt ratios, and a khaki-clad, Polo shirt-wearing Obama appeared on Oprah discussing how he and his wife have every-other-day debates about whether toilet paper should be hung over or under, whom do you think would win a "Best Potential Leader" poll? McCain? What are you, an idiot?
That said, I have a modest proposal, and it's as follows:
There shall be no fewer than 10 debates between the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates.
No presidential or vice-presidential debate - in perpetuity - will be visually broadcast. Television stations and Internet sites who "cover" each debate shall visually-offer campaign Web site addresses only.
Think nobody will pay attention to such debates? Think they're ratings poison? First of all, back in 2000, millions of Americans tuned into a static TV screen when the U.S. Supreme Court heard Bush v. Gore. So much for nobody tuning in.
And second, any individual who can't find the time to listen/pay attention to one of ten presidential debates -- well, we should start thinking about how we can keep him or her from entering a voting booth. Wait. That's another proposal altogether.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, October 08, 2008 
