Presidential Showdown...
September 30, 2004 | 
14 Comments
…my ass.
Does anyone out there think the debates are worth watching? I, for one, don’t think we’ll learn a damn thing we don’t already know. I mean this “debate” seems less real than your average reality TV show and that’s saying quite a lot.
The playing field isn’t level (literally) and the rules for the debate so damn tight I wouldn’t be surprised if they just sat up there making faces at each other. Oh, wait, that’s probably covered in the rules also.
Zipped shut?
What the hell happened? Didn’t these debates used to be lively, challenging and informative? Freedom of speech doesn’t really carry the meaning it should when our supposed best and brightest can’t speak each others’ mind and discuss openly about the issues that could shape the future of not only our country, but the world.
And don’t get me started on the “soft supporter” make up of the audience. What a joke. I want my presidential candidates to be challenged, not coddled. It’s a hard world out there for crying out loud.
Ah anyway, what do I know? I get my news from Jon Stewart. Oh well, at least I can look forward to his analysis of stuff we already know, that’ll be more entertaining and informative than the actual debates, I’m sure of that.
Filed under: Life and Such
Comments
1. Elaine said:
I saw this NPR piece (linked from Kottke, I think)…here’s what changed it from the debates of our childhood (?!):
“The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.”
Me, I may just ignore them. I get my news from blogs. ;)
Posted on September 30, 2004 03:30 PM | #
2. JonathanB said:
What a sad state of affairs. The candidates, parties and special interest groups spew their 30 second commercials all over the airwaves, the public gets very little substance from the candidates and the media conglomerates keep raking in the money.
When we finally have a debate, it isn’t a debate at all.
Is this anyway to have an election?
By the way, the Daily Show rocks! I never miss it.
Posted on September 30, 2004 03:44 PM | #
3. Mike said:
Via Greg at Airbag the other day -
No Joke: Daily Show Viewers Follow Presidential Race.
The breakdown of jokes further in the article is pretty interesting. But for those of us who watch the Daily Show - we already knew this - I know that’s why I watch…
Posted on September 30, 2004 04:06 PM | #
4. Chris Vincent said:
I’m glad we agree.
The fact is, neither party wants to be challenged. Apparently, they are so intent on avoiding the challenge that they sacrifice their own chances to challenge the *other* guy. It’s ridiculous. If this weren’t a presidential election, it’d be funny as hell.
Kerry’s case against Bush is incredible; I don’t know why he would give up an opportunity to really hammer him just so that he doesn’t have to answer a few tough questions.
It’s infuriating. This Democrats really want to be the party that it should be, but the higher-ups just won’t take that risk. If anything, and quite ironically, not taking the risk is the biggest risk for Kerry’s campaign.
Posted on September 30, 2004 04:34 PM | #
5. Justin said:
Sure these debates are a sham, but what’s even more important is what comes after the debate.. the headlines announcing Bush is the winner. Thereby convincing the people who didn’t watch the debate who they should vote for. Well it won’t happen again, not if I can help it
Posted on September 30, 2004 05:19 PM | #
6. craig said:
Watching the debates is a great excuse for a drinking game.
Posted on September 30, 2004 05:45 PM | #
7. teli said:
“Does anyone out there think the debates are worth watching?”
Is this a retorical question?
“What the hell happened? Didn’t these debates used to be lively, challenging and informative?”
Maybe in Highschool…
“…discuss openly about the issues that could shape the future of not only our country, but the world”
Didn’t you get the memo? That information is supplied on a need to know basis only and unfortunately, civilians do not have the proper security clearence.
If you haven’t already guessed it yet, my views on politics are pretty jaded. This is my first year voting- I’m excited, but it’s bittersweet. Based on the information I’ve gathered from various news sources, blogs, and the light-hearted VH1 Bush v Kerry bling off - my question now becomes, which is the lesser of 2 evils…
Posted on September 30, 2004 06:08 PM | #
8. Keith said:
teli – I know how you feel.
BTW – I got suckered into watching it. Nothing too new, but Bush did just get Osama and Saddam mixed up again. Shesh, you think that’d be priority #1 for him…
Posted on September 30, 2004 06:19 PM | #
9. Michael said:
Everyone gripes about how there’s no real choice and both candidates stink and the lesser of two evils and on and on and on. The problem is that come election day they will sit at the ballot box and try to decide which is the lesser of two evils and vote for one party or the other. This year - like the last election and the election before that - I’m “throwing my vote away”. That’s right I’m not voting for Bush or Kerry I’m voting for Nader.
Kringe and shudder as much as you want but until we have viable, statistically significant 3rd party candidates we will just see more of the same homogenous trash that makes it’s way into office. So I’m voting Nader and I’m encouraging others who don’t like Bush and don’t like Kerry to REALLY make their vote count and vote Nader. HE WON’T WIN. It’s gauranteed. But if some poll on CNN or NBC shows that any third party candidate got a significant showing it will encourage more third party voting later and more interest by Nascar Dad. Slowly but surely it will grow until the other two parties are forced to really change or we get great third party candidates into positions of power.
Posted on September 30, 2004 07:07 PM | #
10. Jason Marble said:
Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard of the 20 Million Loud and Mr. P-Diddy or what ever the hell he’s calling himself now (on a side note, I might make fun of his name, but I love his music). They keep pushing the message for young americans to just get out and vote.
Most young americans are completely unaware about the current issues. Most young americans aren’t even sure where they stand on the political spectrum. It is important that if they want to vote, they have to be informed of the major current issues, find their personal opinion, and find each parties general opinion.
The Presedential Debates are essential for anyone who is unsure about the opinions of the candidates, and their parties.
We could talk about politics forever, but the fact is most of us are completely unaware of the details of our most important issues. Most of us do not even know how the election process works. We don’t vote for our president, we vote for which party we want to represent our state in the electoral college.
Americans, and especially young americans, need to pay more attention to our world and home issues. Read the news; question the press; watch the debates; vote for what YOU think.
Posted on September 30, 2004 07:58 PM | #
11. Keith said:
Jason – You make a very good point. (And I did end up watching the debates.)
If you didn’t know a whole lot about what the candidates thought on these issues, the debates are a good “snap shot” to give you a basic idea.
For me, I just didn’t like all the rules and think that the political spin started before the debates began. I guess I’m asking too much to want clear and open communication between the “folks” (he he) running our country.
Posted on September 30, 2004 08:03 PM | #
12. Jason Marble said:
Haha, the “folks”. I definitely have to agree with you Keith on the fact that the debates are only a “snap shot”. I also don’t like the rules, but, I guess they’re just a way to keep it a snap shot. The political spin definitely started way before the debates, and the debates really aren’t even a debate, they’re more of just a summarized clarification.
Posted on September 30, 2004 08:22 PM | #
13. Joel LaTondress said:
“Soft supporters” in the audience - you’re not kidding. I attend Arizona State (no jokes please), the venue for the third debate and they’re leaving approximately 1% (see: 30-40) of seats available in the venue for students. Wow, thanks for involving us in the process; entry is by lottery only and tickets are non-transferable. Now that’s democracy in action…
Posted on September 30, 2004 10:56 PM | #
14. jazz said:
Having just finished watching the last of the debates, I can’t understand how people gripe about all the ‘rule making’ and how they’re both equally bad, so they ‘throw away their vote by going Nader’. When I listened to the two candidates speak, there were clear differences in what they where saying, and how they were saying it.
In the first debate, there must have been something wrong with Bush’s earpiece feed because he was talking like an idiot-savante. In the second, the playing ground evened out, but by any civilized standard, Kerry won that, too. And in the third, Kerry was clear and kept to a basic point - look at where all the spending is going - the debt the country is in, who the biggest tax cuts came to, and who can better manage this country out of this huge mess its in. Bush diverted questions and wasted time remniscing about touching moments in his life.
If you actually focused on and listened carefully to the reason and logic behind the debates, how could you see them as equal, they both stand for such different things.
Incidentally, a vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush: the Republicans fund the majority of Nader’s campaign, because a vote for Nader is a vote taken away from the Democrats. A clever loophole that allows politicall affiliated companies to fund campaigns anonymously.
Posted on October 13, 2004 08:38 PM | #
Comments are now closed