The Problem With Debates

Who won?

It's the predictable first question. Ironically, the liberal press will rush to say that Barry O won, but that's a given. The conservative news outlets are more likely to give each a fair shake, but in the end, asking 'who won' is like asking any other question that is hopelessly subjective. So, those who ask such stupid questions are morons who can't delve into more substantive issues. Yeah, I'm talking about you, George Stepahanaoapholispououss. But great hair, fella. Too bad you're 5'1".

The first presidential debate of 2008 is over, and both candidates presented themselves rather well, in terms of demeanor, clarity of voice, and time discipline. But what do such debates prove? Very little, if history is any teacher.

JFK did well in the first televised debates. JFK was a womanizing, inexperienced joke of a leader who nearly got the U.S. into WWIII by being asleep at the wheel in the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle. He looked better on TV than the flu-riddled Nixon, but that didn't win him the election, and it certainly didn't make him a good president. The most famous thing JFK ever did was get shot. Had he served out his term, he would have gone down as the most over-blown do nothing the libs have ever tried to immortalize.

Debates are window dressing. They relate to the adage that the 'clothes make the man.' They really don't prove anything other than to help establish some proficiency for public speaking. The debates are nothing more than carefully choreographed, pre-conditioned stump speeches that rarely enter the actual arena of a debate. It is comparable to two boxers making rules before a fight, which include the usual no rabbit punches, low blows, etc., but adding - no hitting around the face, no sweating, no dancing around, no left hooks, no right crosses, no upper cuts..... you get the point. That is analogous to presidential debates. By the time they are cooked down by the two camps, they are so emasculated and diluted, they are hardly worth watching. Maybe that's why the press punks start in on, 'so...who looked the best?' Reference their pathetic morning shows entrenched with fashion shows and smart dressers and you know how they think.

We as Americans deserve more than this luke warm tripe, but sadly, few citizens really want to know the issues that should be debated. Americans like their politics watered down, and their beer tarted up. They would rather be emotional than informed. Americans who routinely squander what should be a good income will vote in ignorance for the candidate who 'seems' more concerned about their "plight." (their plight is that they burn money like wood and use credit like water)

As a quick aside, a good constitutional amendment would be to place the following as preconditions necessary to be allowed to vote:
1. Be a college graduate (2 or 4 year)
2. No felony record of any kind
3. No bankruptcy history
4. Registered for selective service
5. Proficiency with English language
6. No government assistance (currently)
7. Absolutely mandatory..... no illegal aliens, and if your citizenship is dependant upon being born in the U.S., you cannot vote until your parents are nationalized
8. Your IRS standing is totally clear
9. You have to name the past 6 presidents, in order, and determine their party affiliation, years served, and one major event in their presidency.
10. You have to say the pledge to the U.S. flag

OK, so it sounds more like a citizenship test, but by golly, there is a reason why our founding fathers set up the electoral college. We have some of the worlds best and brightest minds, but likely 2/3rds of our population don't even know the true job description of a president, let alone the divisions of government. Just watch that liberal idiot Jay Leno interview people on the streets in Burbank, and cry yourself to sleep. At least he points out the average intelligence quotient of people in lala land.

Televised debates, such as they are, are something we do to assure ourselves that we're staying informed and making rational decisions. Being able to speak reasonably well in such a antiseptic vacuum hardly proves anything about a persons ability to lead.

It is high time that Americans lose their fascination for public speaking (especially with teleprompters) and look further than a nice suit and a tan. In the bible, Israel cried out for a king, even though God didn't want them to have one. God wanted His people to look to Him as their king, but the rebellious and indifferent Israelites were unrelenting. So God told one of His prophets, Samuel, to pick Saul, who was a tall, good looking man with supposed military prowess. In fact, his height and his moderate military experience wowed the crowd, and they thought they had just discovered sliced bread. Problem was.....Saul's height and experience did not come close to making up for his ill temper, bad judgment, disrespect for God, and love of himself. He was a very POOR leader, who eventually turned into a raging maniac and idolater, bent upon murder. The people chose him based upon foolish criteria, and we as Americans today still do the same thing.

Presidents in America actually have less to do with policies and direction than does the congress and House. But their position is very important, and so during this election cycle, it would be wise for our citizens to look a little further into their candidate than their speaking style or appearance.

After all, ol Abe was an ugly fellow, and arguably, one of our finest presidents ever.