My Review of the First Debate

The old-fashioned presidential debate has become, well, old-fashioned. At this point, does anyone really care about the endless array of statistics – real and imagined, and no doubt for the most part ginned up – that the two candidates recited endlessly last night? Both men looked haggard, especially the president. No doubt both had been cramming their brains full of these useless fake factoids for weeks. Really, what they should’ve done is hung out by the pool for a day or two beforehand to collect their thoughts.

There is something awkward and indeed strange about receiving detailed economic plans for the first time in oral form. What are we, the citizens of a society based on oral tradition? There is this little thing called the Internet. Why don’t the two sides post the details of, for example, their economic plans online months before the debates? Let the media, experts, the Congressional budget office, etc. analyze the plans so that they have been fully synthesized by the public before the two candidates meet.

Presidential debates are a chance for the public to compare and contrast to visions of the way that the country should move forward – or, in a democracy, multiple visions. But we don’t have that. But I digress.

Obama seemed especially exhausted, like a college kid who it spent the night studying the night before. Overall, I would give the advantage to Romney, but not because Romney was particularly impressive. One edge that Romney did have was his ability to tap into personal stories, such as the unemployed folks he met in Dayton, Ohio.

Both men, but particularly Pres. Obama, look like college kids who had spent the night before cramming for an exam. They were rote and robotic and uninspiring and uninspired.

Voters need to know what each candidate’s vision is for the country. Instead, especially from the president, we got different “approaches.” Pres. Obama said, I have a different approach to this from Mitt Romney. I have a different approach to that. We don’t need approaches.

Pres. Obama seems bloodless. Which, considering that he was standing next to Mitt Romney, is saying something. Why didn’t he talk about his vision?

If I had been standing there, I would have talked about the country that is possible. A country in which nobody is sleeping outside due to lack of money. A country where losing your job doesn’t mean losing your dignity. The country in which a CEO is not allowed to pay himself $40 million the same year that he fires thousands of employees.

I would talk about building a country with different priorities, such as one that does not squander trillions of dollars on stupid, counterproductive, brutal wars while millions of our citizens are starving and denying themselves medical care. I would talk about the need to provide a college education to everyone who wants and qualifies for one. I would talk about the need to rebuild our infrastructure from the ground up, and talk about the lack of dignity created by this system.

Even within the constructs of capitalism – the most evil, reprehensible, discriminatory economic system ever conceived – there is still space to argue for the kind of reforms that would not only make most people’s lives better, but would save the system from the inevitable collapse and or revolution to come. Once again, both standardbearers of the major political parties squander their opportunity to show that there is any way out, or that reform is possible. Maybe that is because it is not.

10 Comments.

  • […] What Ted Rall said. Bookmark […]

  • Reform is indeed possible. Reform on a timetable you would deem acceptable is not. However, all that means is that the problem is with your expectations and timetable, not with reform.

    Also, revolution and/or collapse are only inevitable if you extend the time-line you’re using to ridiculous levels, which, when you do so without mentioning that you’re doing it, rises to Romney levels of dishonesty (I note you utterly fail to mention the pack of blatant lies Romney told last night).

    “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”- Fight Club

  • Obama is the ultimate politician of our time.

    He is attempting to be the Reagan of this age.

    How so?

    He knows that the public at large has a teeny tiny attention span, so he is setting up the Mittster by coming out weakly in the first debate. Second debate will be deemed a draw and the third debate, he is going to kick Mitt in the balls and leave him begging for the Angel Moroni to come save him.

    It is part of the master plan.

    Guaranteed.

  • I should have added that the two candidates agreed entirely too much. I mean, guys, at least pretend there’s a difference, you know?

  • Retarded Whimsical, right on time with the only post he/she/it knows how to post. Over and over. Like a retarded broken record no one is listening to.

    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”
    “Just give it time … (skip)”

    Ah, the sounds of my favorite troll: Retarded Whimsical.

  • @plant

    I own you. Run along back to your right wing masters now, the grownups are talking.

  • alex_the_tired
    October 4, 2012 9:37 AM

    Ted,

    The unpleasant reality is that economics is barely understood in the United States. A lot of people still cling to the idea that a government should spend in the same way that an individual should spend, and there’s still a lot of the Puritanical mixed in with our cultural mindset.

    Twenty-three million unemployed [sic] and any economist who isn’t on crack will give you the solution in a single sentence: Either put all the unemployed on indefinitely extended unemployment insurance or invent jobs for all of them so that they can collect paychecks. The rest is details because the issue isn’t actually jobs. The issue is that all the unemployed are going to become a huge burden a few years down the line. We’re seeing that burden already. When the Boomers hit retirement and have no food money, it’s going to get even worse. But up come all the people who are hysterical with apoplexy about how some freeloader is getting to sit on his ass and live off their sweat.

    I am very interested in the polls following this debate. Romney actually looked (and acted) human. He reminded me, on a couple of moments, of a younger, smarter Reagan. He had that whiff of Presidential about him. Obama, as you pointed out, looked haggard. And Romney kept it simple, stupid. Twenty-three million unemployed [sic].

    It is terrifying to contemplate, but Romney might actually pull this off. Let’s see how:
    pretty-boy Ryan does on the next debate (with Biden as an opponent, it probably won’t be too hard to win that).
    the second and third Obama/Romney debates go.
    whether the Republicans can lock down all the dirty tricks in time to disenfranchise as many voters as possible. (Note to the Dem leadership: be sure to complain about this AFTER the election, when it will really matter.)

  • There are some people (usually in sales) who are incredibly persuasive. When they are in front of you, you may know intellectually that everything they’re saying is a lie, but your gut insists that you MUST believe them, and intellectual arguments be damned. Your emotions give you no choice but to agree to purchase their product.

    At the first debate, Romney was just that persuasive. So persuasive, I think, that if the election had been at the end of the debate, President Obama and Jim Lehrer would both have voted for him.

    And, within an hour after the debate ended, I’m sure both had severe buyer’s remorse.

    It remains to be seen if the voters remain persuaded by Romney’s incredibly effective debate performance in the cold light of morning.

    Reliable polls won’t be out for a few more days (reliable poling takes time), but the on-the-spot polls gave Romney a big boost. Whimsical denies the validity of such polls, and he/she/it has a valid point, but overstated as usual.

  • aaronwilliams135
    October 6, 2012 12:51 PM

    Romney changed his tax and healthcare positions on the fly, which turned out to be an effective move. Although even his new positions were riddled with logical holes, Obama proved to be too slow on his feet–or just too much of a p****–to take Romney to task over it.

    Ted, I luv ya, you know it; but as a technical aside, I think that Monarchy with Noble ownership of land and Serfdom and Slavery is an even worse economic system than Capitalism. That’s why we don’t have that system any more, it was so bad, that the serfs and slaves actually rose up and did something about it.

  • Ted-
    Obama can’t say the things that you suggested. His financial backers won’t allow it. And the right would attack him endlessly. In a better world, the press would back Obama against right wing attacks, but they have been cowed by all the “liberal press” attacks, and their corporate bosses.
    Except for the Supreme Court appointments, I would prefer a Romney win. Nothing else will change much, except Congress might actually pass some useful legislation. However, in 4 years the country would be so sick of the guy that any Dem could win. They will overplay their hand, they can’t help themselves. Grassroots opposition will continue to build and the realities of global warming and dwindling resources will be overwhelming. Could be the catalyst for small “r” revolution.
    Vote for Jill Stein.

Comments are closed.

css.php