Friday, October 12, 2012
Debates Under Further Review
[A guest column in two parts written by a good friend in Colorado. Enjoy; and perhaps learn from a court jester.]
Reflections on Debate One:
I have thought and thought about your blog and feel the need for further consideration. We need to call the experience of the two candidates together for what it is. It is NOT a debate. It is, as every news event has come to be . . . a sporting event. It is . . . political sport. There used to be a time when news broadcasts had “on the scene” reporting. Such reporting now has all the air, the urgency, the heart pounding rapid speech of the “down on the field “color commentary.
Mindful that we should see such debates as extension of sports, it is imperative that the moderator be dressed appropriately with stripped shirt and ball cap. At the end of each speech, replacing advertising, there should be mandatory replays for fact checks with an important looking man with a whistle to announce . . . “under further review.” Perhaps a fifteen second penalty for each false assertion! This poses an issue as to the maximum seconds that could be deducted, mindful that if it were accumulative, Nitt Romney would be ineligible to speak until 2020.
That wouldn’t be fair.
Instead of the huge scoreboard, a tentative score would be the more polite evaluation of judges holding up cards like at swimming events. Say, 5 .6 out 6.0. Allowance would be given for flair, looking authentic, pointing and bright teeth. A really good point driven home with force, flair and the glare would be given extra, like basketballs three point shot.
I also think that candidates should be encouraged to wear advertising decals on their suits like formula racing cars. Just think of the glitter if Romney wore a flashing FOX news patch or a giant “ONE PERCENT” on his back or wore a “Cal Worthington Used Car Hat.”
I am on to something Milo. The true American Way of the sport that leads to the ultimate trophy . . .an Oscar with the likeness of a Supreme Court Justice.
Reflections on Debate Two:
Joe gleamed last night. It was a mighty gleam. George Bush would have said the Joe had “gleam-ness.” Joe gleamed at the camera like the lion of the Wizard of Oz, “. . . Who do you trust? Who do you trust?” Then he turned to Paul and gleamed him down, turning this man from Wisconsin on his own mascot, badgering him with that incessant smile, upper cutting him with condescending smirks and above all, rope a doping his Republican opponent with politicos interruptus. Paul Ryan was interrupted by the gleaming Joe so many times that Republicans after the game said the Joe Biden was “rude.” RUDE? Hello! DUH! Could you imagine Joe Frazier after fighting Mohammad Ali saying “that man was rude?”
THIS IS A GAZILLION DOLLAR SPORT! Do you think the average American plants themselves before the altar of Sunday afternoon football to watch “Polite.” If all you show up with at a political debate is argument and issues, you might as well be an empty chair.
According to the CBS instant poll of undecided voters, Joe out gleamed Paul 50% to 31%. Let freedom ring! This was before the truth squad referees called penalties for lies, deceptions and half-truths.
In the meantime, licking his wounds of humiliation in his White House man cave, trying to get a little gleam of his own with a little self-deprecating humor, Obama . . .awaits. In the distance you can hear the faint sound of trumpets playing the score of Rocky-27. Don’t push Barrack in the corner with the worst presidential playoff game in American history!
All eyes are on Tuesday night’s game. There in one corner, or field, or court, will be a poll bolstered, Fit Nitt. And in the other is one determined Nitt Picker who won’t be duped this time of what this is all about. Obama is loaded for bear . . . or weasel. This time Obama is going to quip him. Quip him good. He was game-changed once, but this time he will not be out smiled by Dudley Far Right. Mr. Cool is coming out fighting with his own bolstering of a reduction of below 8% un-employment.
However, after further review, it is determined that half of the reduction of unemployment is due to the drastic increase in political telemarketers. We all need to face the fact that this country, at this moment, is sustained by campaign revenues so high that even the 1% are envious. That, after all is the cost of show business, the game show of politics. It may well be that as the price of running for office increases we may stimulate the economy enough to rise out of our deficient by just the cost of the next election.
The next election needs to start right now.
Jim Campbell, court jester