So, I watched the first Presidential debate.
Actually, I lied, I watched the last five minutes, and even that was too much.
To me, the only entertainment value of the debate whatsoever was watching the hamster fall off Bush’s mental wheel. But the most interesting component of the debate, in my mind, was all of the dreck behind the scenes in the days leading up to it.
I truly believe that all of us, regardless of race, creed, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc., were finally ready to put away the slingable mud in our hands and start to hammer away at the issues and questions so prevalent in our minds regarding if we’ll have a country or a smoking crater in four years. To me, and I don’t feel I’m alone, the beginning of the debates were the end of the nonsense, and the start of something real and meaningful in the campaign.
Instead, the lawyers involved with the debates produced a 32 page “Memorandum of Understanding” between the candidates, laughed in our faces, and threw up all over democracy.
This document spelled out, in typically breathtakingly nonsensical lawyer-laden slime, every single detail of the debates, down to where the candidates could stand, the height of the podiums, and that their smiles had to be bigger, faker, and creepier then Bob “Natural Male Enhancement” Enzyte.
However, the document went easy on the candidates in one respect: the way they could take notes.
Each candidate was allowed any “size, color and type” of paper they preferred, as well as any kind of writing utensil to supplement said paper.
Now of course, this document, in its only supposed rigidity had left them a loophole: We wouldn’t want Kerry, that sneak, stealing into the forum with anything but a white ruled HighMark legal pad, model number P3-C811WP now, would we? I mean, what if he should choose a yellow legal pad? Or, for that matter, a red pen?
And Bush, using a pad of Yellow Post-Its model number 6549 and a black crayon? Or possibly upgrading to a coloring book and one of those aromatic markers? Their creative tendencies could easily be fulfilled by their choice of paper color!
Perish the thought that they might even choose. Gasp! Construction Paper!
Because, of course, the more leeway, the more fluidity, the more creative license we provide the candidates, the more they will be able to deviate from the sterile, virginal, scripted, cookie-cutter debate form we have setup, thereby mucking up our media’s ability to capitalize off of the ensuing free-for-all.
Said David Steinberg of the University of Miami, “They want to eliminate surprises.” Well, of course they do. Because, we sure can’t have a surprise at a debate for who will lead the free world, if we have to choose on who is better suited to lead our nation. Instead, our choice should be purely based on who flings better insults, uses less Botox, or makes more vague, unrealistic promises without any intent to keep them.
If we were to actually vote for a candidate on the premise that they’re the best man for the job, then, of course, the terrorists have already won.
Originally printed with permission in The Daily O’Collegian, October 6th, 2004
Comment on this post below
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.