McCain and Obama delivered their performances in such canned fashion that I was expecting moderator Tom Brokaw to interject: “Senators, the next question comes from Mr. Charlie the Tuna in section F…”Tuna: “Senators, where do you stand on the fundamental issue facing contemporary political debate—water- or oil-packing?”
Calculatedly ambiguous throughout the debate, getting a straight answer from McCain or Obama would be like trying to ‘nail tuna to a wall.’ However, McCain’s “Drill, baby, drill” platform suggests that he indeed is an oil-packer, while Obama’s Green platform suggests that he prefers the more natural surroundings of water-packing. But I digress.
The debate was nothing more than scripted, sound-bite politics. This is exactly why the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to be impeached. In bipartisan charade, these candidates—under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates—craft a memorandum of understanding, a frame-work deliberately designed to avoid back-and-forth debate, to prevent spontaneity, and dodge delicate questions. Like a minotaur from Baghdad, these CPD sponsored debates are nothing but bull-shi’ite.
Obama again proved that he’s style without substance, regurgitating the same vague, stump-speech sound-bytes, on issues ranging from the bailout to taxes. Completely absent were elaborated specifics in his platform—economic reform, foreign policy, healthcare, etc…
Like a seasoned Washington insider, John McCain merely resorted to more of the same, tired mudslinging that his campaign has engaged in since he formally accepted the nomination of his party at the Republican National Convention of 1872. Politics as usual…
This debate—more than anything else—highlighted the need to scrap the Commission on Presidential Debates and to allow relevant, 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader to participate.
Charlie the Oil-Packed Republican and the Jolly Green Democrat were preservative-laden bores.
Revolutionarily yours,
Thommmunist
Posts
2 comments:
I agree with you, that the third party canidates should be allowed to participate in all the political debates. I think it's very unfair that only the two dominating parties get to debate. But I equally think that they should allow the canidates to go at it instead of the mediator asking questions that aren't hard hitting. They are favoring Obama right now because the liberal media is controlling the debates. It really isn't a fair election imo.
Very good blog post though, I enjoyed reading it. =)
Thanks for your feedback, Wendy.
Unfortunately, the candidates agree on the format ahead of time: memorandoms of understanding. They intentionally avoid back-and-forth debating that could expose them or make both of them look bad.
The League of Women Voters, who prior to 1980 sponsored the debates, kept them honest; the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to go.
Take care.
Post a Comment