So Much for a Debate
John Denver — who sang about “raining fire from the sky” in Colorado — would have been disappointed. There was no fire from the sky, no fireworks, no zingers, hardly any pulse. Wednesday night’s much anticipated first presidential debate at the University of Colorado was one long snooze fest. Watching the debate on Wednesday, actually, reminded me of the saying to the effect that if voting made a whit of difference, it would be illegal. And for lots of people (like many felons), it is illegal. But mostly, people don’t vote because they don’t see the point.
President Obama wore a plush blue tie and called Michelle “sweetie.” Mitt Romney wore a striped red tie and stared at Obama during the split screens with the expression of a condescending puppy. (I welcome suggestions for an alternative description because puppies cannot be condescending.) Jim Lehrer, veteran and venerated journalist, barely registered during those longest 90 minutes of my life — aside from asking a few softball questions and genteelly requesting specifics from the two candidates as they recited talking points and statistics.
I think I would have had a better time if I had been playing one of the many debate drinking games that were available. One drink for ObamaCare? Really, Buzz Feed? Between the two of them, it was uttered 21 times!
Rachel Maddow called debate night her “favorite night in politics,” but I was not enthused. The Thursday morning pundit-backs have made hay fact checking the debate. That’s good. There were some doozies as a “professorial” Obama and an “aggressive” Romney crossed swords.
I perked up once during the hour and a half. When President Obama mentioned that under a President Mitt Romney the military would get a $2 trillion boost that it did not need and had not asked for. Now that is a headline-worthy takeaway.What? Come again? Here we are, with the world’s largest military budget, which has only continued on its skyward spike under President Barack Obama, while we are saddled with a groaning deficit, a splintering social infrastructure, and an ever-growing alienated and impoverished population. And Candidate Romney wants to hand the gold-plated Pentagon even more of our hard-earned bucks? That is something to resist, to protest, to organize against.
Where is an additional $2 trillion for basic infrastructure like bridges, ports and highways? For a educational system that graduates skilled workers and critical thinkers? For a health care system that keeps people healthy? For energy efficiency and green jobs? For all of the things that both candidates trumpeted as so important. Until these guys start talking about putting real resources into tackling our real problems, they are just farting around. Obama and Romney are suggesting thousand and million and billion dollar fixes to our problems. Trillions of dollars are reserved only for war making, for bloodletting, for nation-dismantling.
Between the networks and cable outlets, it is estimated that almost 60 million people tuned in. That is actually sort of an impressive number — one in five Americans. I spent the whole debate wondering who else was watching. Were the people referenced by either candidate watching as their successes and failures became grist for the political mill? How about the woman who told Romney she could not afford health insurance for her son, or the guy with the small business who complained about his high tax bill, or the husband who just lost his fourth part time job in three years, or woman who went back to school at 55 and is proud of her new job?
I wondered what two trillion dollars worth of change would look like. I wondered why any sane person would want to be president. I wished that our election season were 18 days long instead of 18 months long. I wished that the protesters who gathered outside were part of the debate, invited to bring their creativity and energy into that totally stale environment. And, I wished that Big Bird had moderated instead of Jim Lehrer. And then it was over. Yawn.
The good news is that the Ryan-Biden debate promises to be a bit more interesting. You know how Catholics like to mix it up, right? (Two Catholic veep candidates; a first for the history books!) Let’s all stay tuned, if we can stand it.
CONNECT













10 comments on "So Much for a Debate"
October 07, 2012 2:48pm
gore said bho was high it seemed like he was
October 06, 2012 9:13pm
RMoney looked like he was smelling something bad-probably his 27 lies.
October 06, 2012 7:08pm
Obama needs to actually debate!
What the *$#@ was that lame duck nonsense?
He had at least ten very ripe opportunities to pounce on Romney and instead he seemed like he was sleepwalking!
Wake up Mr. President - we're counting on you!
October 06, 2012 12:23pm
I see Romney with the a priest's standard expression of compassion or pity and the expression is so fake that is quasi comical and offensive to all the nice priests.
October 06, 2012 7:09pm
Are there nice priests?
October 06, 2012 10:57am
Since 1988 the Presidential Debates have been operated by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit corporation controlled entirely by the Democratic and Republican parties and their respective sponsors.
The results are as obvious as they are predictable. Since every effort is made by the Commission to bar third party candidates from the debates we'll never hear any questions about or discussions of issues where the Two Parties are in lockstep agreement - perpetual war, suppression and criminalization of dissent, impunity for bank fraud and other predatory capitalistic crimes, the drug war, the war on terror, the perpetuation and expansion of the prison industrial complex, the privatization of the educational system, maintaining a for-profit healthcare system, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, execution by executive order, etc, etc.
Operated by the Commission on Presidential Debates the debates are a sham. Bring back the League of Women Voters or some other non-partisan agency to run the debates. Non-partisan, not bipartisan. And include any candidate who will be on the ballot in enough states to total 270 electoral votes. Had this rule been in effect this year Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson would have been included .. and there would have been a debate. A real debate. Democracy and the voters would have been well served.
October 12, 2012 9:24am
If you go to DemcracyNow you can see Amy Goodman interviewing Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson on each subject of the "debate".
October 08, 2012 5:04pm
Yours is a good post, Mountainman23! Well stated!!
October 06, 2012 10:54am
RMoney? Condescending sociopath...
"For a health care system that keeps people healthy?" Even "liberal" people have been so corrupted by the USAmerican for-profit corporate sick care system that they don't realize that the model we want is what most of the world has; a Health Care system that is concerned with "restoring people to their normally healthy state" not a medical auto shop "fixing" human meat...
There hasn't been a hint of an actual "debate" on television since William F Buckley and the REAL Public Broadcasting System days...(pre-corporate-funded National Propaganda Radio)
October 06, 2012 10:25am
How about, instead of a puppy, calling Willard the condescending snob that he is?