Fact: I have not watched any of the 2012 presidential debates.
And I have no intention of tuning in now.
See, the problem is that I really am not a fan of politics, and I’ve become convinced now more than ever that pretty much every candidate running for office—from the two presidential hopefuls right on down to those aspiring to be your local dog catcher—is more interested in what public office can do for them rather than what they can do for the public while in office. You know, the polar opposite of that gloriously idealistic JFK inauguration speech. Sad how far we’ve fallen in half a century.
Consider: At last check, an estimated $1 billion will be spent on this presidential election, most of it invested by Very Wealthy People (on all sides). These people are usually very rich for a reason, mainly because they tend not to back causes that don’t have a potentially high return for them. In other words, they are investing an colossal amount of money in this election because they know that winning the White House is important for their bottom lines and how much more money they can possibly make. It has nothing—and I repeat, NOTHING—to do with helping the American people. You’ve been hanging out too long in Plato’s cave if you believe otherwise.
As far as the debates themselves go, I’ve also come to the conclusion that both candidates (any candidate, really) will say absolutely anything to be elected, and then will somehow get a pass later if they go back on their campaign promises. Really, it’s a silly dance that’s been going on for decades when you think of it—they tell us what we want to hear to get elected, then when they don’t fulfill those pledges, we sort of say, “Well, that’s okay—it was a campaign promise, so we never really expected you to do it anyway.”
Oh sure, some presidents to try to keep certain promises, but more times than not, they fall by the wayside when the reality of taking office sets in.
As such, I propose
Five Ways to Make the Presidential Debates More (Interesting to Me, Anyway)
1. Allow weapons – I’m not talking about guns or knives or anything that will cause permanent damage, but I’d like if they used fencing foils, pugilsticks or nunchuks, or if they went the pro wrestling route and allowed flaming steel chair or two. Even if it was a normal debate, and then at some point, Obama reached into his jacket pocket for “a foreign object” and used it on Romney (or vice versa), that would be must-see TV!
2. Debate girls – You know, to hold up the score cards between matches. (Hey, it works in Vegas to “class up” boxing matches.) Sex sells, right? And of course, since I’m all about equality, if they want to throw in a few beefcake ring guys for the ladies to enjoy, so be it.
3. Karaoke – This would only work if they had Simon Cowell as a judge. “Mitt, that rendition of ‘My Boo’ was absolutely dreadful. I mean, the absolute worst ever—you wouldn’t hear a version that bad on a cruise ship. Obviously, your parents were wealthy enough to pay off your music teachers to tell you that you could sing. Shame on them, shame on you and shame on anyone who contributed to your campaign in the hopes of hearing something special. You may have the breeding and money, but you couldn’t carry a tune in a milk bucket, I’m sad to say.”
4. Shocking truth – This one is pretty simple: During the debates, electrodes are attached to each candidate’s genitals. As they statements are made, they are checked by a non-partisan group like factcheck.org. If a candidate tells a lie, they get a angry jolt of electricity delivered right to Mr. Nutsack or Ms. Ladypart. If anything, I suspect this will greatly shorten debates.
5. Dunk tank – Each candidate climbs up on the bar over the tank, and answers the questions. Whoever gets them wrong, gets dunked. It could also be rigged where the audience gets to vote on the answers or the performance, and the candidate who loses goes for a swim. The dunk tank could also be replaced with a vat of ticks or a bengal tiger pit—I certainly wouldn’t to deter the imagination of the American people.
Any chance we can get these in place before the next debate?
When you dig down into the fact check sites, they tend to be biased as well.
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Aneeberg Challenge funds factcheck.org. And in the past was funded by conservatives. I cant find one fact check site that is funded by both parties. They are devious at best.
Hey, did you know there is an advertisement on your blog page for Mitt Romney’s web site? Just sayin’