The Worst Electorate Ever?
Assessments of the Most Recent Presidential Debate are Grim;under a picture of Barack Obama and John McCain squared off in Tennessee, the Drudge Report presented a single-word critique: "Boring." Politico is calling it the "worst debate ever."
Thursday, October 9, 2008 by AtlanticCanadianScot | Discussion: Internet
The negative general consensus about the debate is summed up tidily in the Times of London's "Gnawingly dull debate won't halt the Obama Tide":
Senator Obama – you may be shocked to hear - promised tax cuts for working people; universal health care, an end to financial deregulation, the winding down of the war in Iraq, a renewed commitment to the war in Afghanistan and an America that is liked by the world. Senator McCain – in case you hadn’t heard – is a Republican who will continue the failed policies of George Bush.
For his part Senator McCain insisted he was – wait for it – a reformer who would reform Washington, end corruption on Wall Street, drill for oil, win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and robustly defend America’s interests. Senator Obama, he gravely reminded the audience, could not be trusted because he didn’t have the experience or the judgment.
Most media outlets, it seems, are peeved at the fact that the candidates strictly stuck to their talking points, despite the fact that doing so mitigates the strength of a debate, making it sanitary and common. It's a reasonable contention; but we've got one question: what campaign has everyone else been following up until now?
Sarah Palin dodged every single question in the VP debate, choosing instead to rattle off prepackaged quotes like she was performing a 10th grade book report. Where was the bored media's ire then? Instead, David Brooks of the New York Times said Palin "held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies." WTF? What philosophy was that, Brooksy? She gave a shout-out to third graders! Sorry to break it to you, everyone, but our politicians now feel that they are above speaking to us honestly. And you know why they think they can do that? Because we don't really make a big deal out of it when they do, because we sit on our asses and allow columnists in the "paper of record" to call them "direct" when we know damn well that they're anything but.
And is everyone authentically shocked that the presidential candidates rarely veer away from their main points (ie Obama: "I was once poor," McCain: "I'm not a sissy lawyer") anymore? This is the final month before the most important election in decades, one in which the slightest verbal or physical mistake has been uploaded to YouTube instantly. Nobody's going to risk shooting from the hip and ending up with a macaca-gate on their hands—or worse, another Palin-style meltdown about Alaskan airspace. For the next thirty days, Obama and McCain are like spiders: more scared of you than you are of them.
And another thing…
The CNN coverage of the debates, with the charts and the graphs and the viewer response lines? That crap needs to end. Have we really reached a point in our zeitgeist where people can't sit and watch two of the most powerful men in the whole world talk about decisions that will effect billions of dollars and people without video games cluttering the screen? Are we that gone on sugar and Ritalin and cocaine?
By framing the debates in useless nonsense, CNN and their ilk are not only distracting voters from what's being said, they're also distracting them from stuff that's actually important to watch when attempting to discern what kind of person a candidate is, their verbal patterns and subtle physical tics.
It's called paying attention, and it's how millions of Americans at bars every night choose who they're going to do the bonedance with. Why can't everyone apply the same level of interest to two men they really don't want to be cornholed by.
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:31 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp interesting snopes article... yeap, it is all because of bush deregulation policies... what is that you say? clinton helped push for the fannie mae deregulations in 1999 to make it lend to sub prime lenders? What is this? bush pushed in 2003 to create and entire regulartory comission to oversee and regulate fannie mae due to its impending disaster? (and failed) What is this? democrats said that bush is exaggerating and that fannie mae is at no risk? mmm... curious... but after all, that can't be, because everyone KNOWS democrats are pro regulations, republicans are anti regulation, and the reason for the economic crisis is the deregulation wraught on by the anti regulation republicans...
Reply #23 Saturday, October 18, 2008 2:59 PM
Bush policies did not cause this financial crisis, Obama was up to his ears in it.There's enough ineptitude to share.
Very, very true. All as a result of someone mispelling certain vital info on the mortgages. 
@taltamir....All of We The People have a hand in this, not just Reps/Dems. We choose the gov't and once chosen we have the responsibility for making sure they do the job and do it right and scream bloody murder if they don't.
We have capitulated to greed, opportunism, laziness, impotence....you name it....they're all just excuses for not having done our job. As for the others? There are folks who should go to jail.
What I want to know is "Where did all the money go?" We're talking Trillions....and don't be tellin' me tha' Stardock 'n Wincustomize be made off'n wit' all th' loot! .... altho, a certain party be kinda suspishus like....th' guy wit' th' striped pants! 
Reply #24 Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:51 PM
If you want to talk politics, go over to www.joeuser.com or www.politicalmachine.com.
The Internet category on WC isn't supposed to be used for discussing politics.
Reply #25 Saturday, October 18, 2008 4:33 PM
DR... I was not eligible to vote in previous elections. And even if I was, the people I would have voted for did not have a hand in it. "It takes two to party" is a huge fallacy, tell that to a rape victim.
All you are doing is chanting slogens to divert blame from specific individuals at fault to "nobody is to blame".
Reply #27 Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:17 PM
All you are doing is chanting slogens to divert blame from specific individuals at fault to "nobody is to blame".
Who cares if you could vote or not? EVERYONE is responsible, not just people over 18. You mean you profited in no way from the "boom" market....oh yes....someone else did and spent the money on you, perhaps (like parents). Yep, you were dragged into it kicking and screaming, and what the heck does rape have to do with anything?
I've got some news fer ye, matey....the politicians od BOTH parties i.e. are ALL in the trough way beyond their snouts (non kosher pork). You believe there's a clean politician who hasn't wasted money not his/her own to insure his/her own re-election? Enough.
The Internet category on WC isn't supposed to be used for discussing politics.
True. I agree. seanskycanadian was a bad boy and posted in the wrong place. So, can a wizop move it? Maybe the rules governing that area should be posted in a screen before the actual post itself gets posted? I notice I.D. answered the post (as did Zubaz) before I.D. commented on placement of the thread, so maybe the wizops supervising a given area could be in charge of whether a given thread is posted in that are or moved to another? I don't know the mechanics of the process so....just another dumb idea that probably has 157 reasons why it can't work. 
Reply #28 Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:37 PM
it is naive to bleieve that EVERY politician MUST be corrupted. It is somewhat prudent to expect them to be corrupt until proven otherwise, it is rediculous to honestly beleive they are ALL corrupt.
Reply #30 Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:17 PM
There are only but a few yard sticks to measure a person by, if they spend more money trying to be elected to a position that will not compensate them in kind, it does usually make a person wonder. I know it makes me wonder. 
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Senator McCain – in case you hadn’t heard – is a Republican who will continue the failed policies of George Bush.
kinda real old...blaming everything on Bush...but I imagine the only way the dems can win is to connect McCain to Bush and blame Bush for Clintion's legacy........like the current Fannie Mae thing.....http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
Lantec, I'm not picking a fight by responding. I checked out the Snopes link and agree that everyone has a dog in this one: Clinton and all the subsequent Presidents, all of the various composites of the Congress (ie both parties), the executives of Ginny and Freddy and their stockholders (the American public) and Wall Street Financial Institutions. It is the perfect storm based on unbounded greed, huge sums of money (which NO ONE has accounted for yet!!!!) and "deregulated" (viz. Trillions of Chickens and no one watching the coop!). No Administration doing due diligence with the public money (after all, the rich control the big Corporations and the Gov't.).
It seems the only function our government fills is mass distraction by doing or not doing anything, having wars, and elections which center around nonsense without any real solutions for very pressing problems.
As for GWB and his administration? I think the verdict's been in for quite some time: You can try living in an alternative reality, but eventually the chickens come home to roost. I think he tried his best, but it wasn't very good and the people surrounding him really did not serve his and our interests loyally. I believe they followed an ideology by rote and tried to squeeze things into fitting that ideology rather than seeing what was really going on and using common sense and unbiased logic to try to solve problems. Instead of uniting us, they divided us and instead of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution they circumvented and neutered it. If you sacrifice freedom for security, you will find very quickly that you have neither.