the non debate
Comments on the presidential debate (which was not a debate) in the form of a town hall meeting (which was not a town hall anything).
The first mind-boggling question is why there were only two candidates represented. If any or several of the third party candidates had appeared, the range and depth of the discussion would have been magnified dramatically. Instead of vague complaining about the economic crisis, we might have gotten to some real historical analysis about how both major parties have been rampantly and irresponsibly setting it up. Instead of both candidates falling all over each other about which one is the biggest friend of Israel or the most caring for sick Americans who can't afford doctors, we might have actually heard about how policies on health care and Israel are forumulated by lobbyists.
Get over it. Third parties are dangerous and will never be allowed in such "debates". Now, about the performance of the Demo and Repub Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
John McCain must have said "my friends" at least a thousand times. Sorry, John. That is fake. That is slimy salesman behavior.
Obama dodged a few more direct questions with syrupy rhetoric than McCain. His approach was avoidant.
If either candidate had spent more time proposing ideas instead of trying to take cheap swipes at each other, the public would have been informed a little. But they were not.
If either candidate had spent more time laying out a plan to solve problems instead of bitching like teenagers about how much time the other guy was taking, the audience might have come away with an accurate picture of the future to vote for. But no.
A question that may be the most important of our time, but which didn't apparently belong in a bipartisan "debate", would have been about the state of the US Constitution. What do we have now, after the onslaught of warrantless phone taps on Americans, searches and seizures of anyone anytime, the invasively 'unitary executive' doctrine, the keeping of more secrets than ever in history, the fighting of undeclared wars, the politicization of government workers, the refusal of the white house to cooperate with oversight by Congress, the claim of the president to the right to invade other countries when and where he (or she) feels like it (without advise and consent), the bloating of government and government spending, the mixing of government with religion, the intrusion of the feds into everything from our sex lives to our schools? What do we have after all that? Something very unconsitutional. But Tom Brokaw was not allowed to ask questions as fundamental as this. And being good party members, neither candidate discussed the state of the Constitution.
The most striking thing about the campaign at this point is the eagerness with which both candidates have abandoned and contradicted the foundations of their past careers. In other words, they are lying about who they are.
McCain has been one of the most consistent pro-big-business de-regulators in Congress for the past thirty years. He has always been willing - since the S&L debacle to the Wall Street meltdown of today - to let fat cats do whatever they want, in the name of "free market". He has pushed the idea that industries can be trusted to solve the problems THEY have created, even recently. His approaches to health care, to drugs, to the environmental crisis, to caring for the needy and to jobs is really just one approach, if you view it over history. That approach is - trust business (especially big business). Then suddenly in this event, McCain tries to pull off this wacky instant makeover. Now, he wants us to believe, he thinks the government should step in to manage the big issues. Buy up all the bad mortgages? Come on.
And Obama, too, is putting on a different face than the one that brung him. Once upon a time, Obama was a critic of the basic thrust of the dumbass wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But last night Obama had shifted over to compromising discussion about how many troops should be moved to which war. He declared himself willing to talk about invading other countries, like Iran and Pakistan. After years of trying to point out that dumbass wars drag on without solving problems, now Obama wants to look like a commander in chief willing to pull the trigger. Come on.
The biggest lie perpetrated by BOTH candidates, in a de facto conspiracy of mainstreamism, was that they were going to change the corrupt system in Washington. Elect one or the other of these characters - they say - and we will be on the track to eliminating everything from pork barrel legislation to lobbyists. Come on.
What did the non-debate say to us?
It said that we can expect politics as usual, no matter who wins. The only winner here is the two-party do-nothing system that has a stranglehold on American political discourse and political behavior.
[Finally, a coda. The issue of race is huge in this election. It shows itself often. Both candidates approached but didn't touch on race. This is real, but we cannot talk about it.]
