Story Time with E: Preposterous Presidential Debate Highlights

Posted by Enrique on 05.10.2007

Why is choosing the most powerful person in the world such a dreadful bore?

As you may be aware, there have been two presidential debates in the last few weeks. Oh, of course you're not aware – the debates were on MSNBC, which routinely gets lower ratings than rerun episodes of Mythbusters. In two thrilling events, eight Democrats and ten Republicans took to their respective stages and regurgitated their respective bumper-sticker-caliber rhetoric for the benefit of the few bitter, unreconstructed Trotskyites that still watch MSNBC ("What's with this debate crap? I tuned in for Olbermann.") After watching the Republican debate and listening to Chris Mathews ask one insulting question after another, I'm convinced more than ever that the Democrats are total wimps for backing out of Fox News-sponsored debates. Brit Hume would bring plenty of dignity to the event, and I doubt we'd hear "is racism still a problem in our society, and can a president do anything about it?" Christ, you might as well ask if gingivitis is still a problem in our society if you're going to be that obvious. There was apparently also a question about amending the Constitution to let Arnold (who was in the audience) run for the oval office some day. Would anyone have asked Abraham Lincoln something like that?

Although, I really think a good question for the Democrat debate would have been "When faced with a difficult legislative decision, do you ever wonder What Would Jesus Do?" Obviously, there would be no need to ask Republicans that question.

The story so far…

The United States of America is preparing to elect its 44th President in November 2008, and there are currently 17 men and one woman from the two major parties that have taken the bold step of filling out the necessary paperwork to run for President. Any of you who were raised with the whole anyone-can-grow-up-to-be-President myth must, like me, be wondering why it's only swine politicians that grow up to be President. These 18 specimens are more of the same. Maybe I'm jaded, but I've gotten past the point where I'm willing to invest any kind of personal stake in a politician – I can't think to myself "Wow, the country really would be better if HE/SHE were President!" I don't even vote anymore. I can't justify voting to put these same assholes and assholettes into office. Maybe one person CAN make a difference, but those kinds of people are never electable.

So let's take a look at the electable, shall we? Here are highlights of the recent debates, courtesy of MSNBC: Democrat and Republican. Let's see what drama we can wring out of these transcripts…

Moderator: Governor Romney, Daniel Duchovnik (ph) from Walnut Creek, California, wants to know: What do you dislike most about America?

Romney: Gosh. I love America. I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss for words because America for me is not just our rolling mountains and hills and streams and great cities. It's the American people.

Oh sweet Lord. First of all, that clearly was a question meant for the Democrat debate a week earlier. Secondly, Mitt Romney is the biggest milquetoast on the face of the earth. What the hell did Chris Mathews think Romney was going to say? "Honestly, I'm shamed every day by the decadence and promiscuity of American women. Insh'allah." Instead Mitt helpfully informs us that he loves the American people. Did he say rolling mountains and streams? I mean, REALLY? I hate you, Mitt Romney.

Here's a nice little quip from Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. Incidentally, Brownback doesn't believe in Darwinian natural selection. And since he keeps getting elected, he might actually have a point. Chris Mathews insipidly asks if it would be good for America if Bill Clinton were living in the White House again.

Brownback: I think it'd be bad because it would mean that Hillary Clinton would be elected, not because of who she is, but because of the policies that she stands for of raising taxes, of not standing up for life, for marriage.

Not standing up for marriage? Are you kidding me? If there's one thing that Hillary has done, it's stand up for the institution of marriage. In fact, she's been disconcertingly steadfast in her support. Now if she serves Bill with divorce papers before the general election, then maybe I'll believe that she can deal with clowns like Kim Jong Il. And she's supposed to be the hawk. Speaking of Hillary, let's take a look at her response to the handsome Brian Williams' question as to why people are inclined to think that America would be safer with a Republican President in a post-9/11 world:

Clinton: Well, Brian, I think that, as a senator from New York, it is something that I have worked on very hard ever since 9/11 -- to try to convince the administration to do those things that would make us safer. And I think there's a big disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. We haven't secured our borders, our ports, our mass transit systems. You can go across this country and see so much that has not been done. The resources haven't gotten to the front lines where decisions are made in local government the way that they need to. And I think that this administration has consistently tried to hype the fear without delivering on the promise of making America safer.

Gee, Hillary, thanks for admonishing Bush for using fear as a motivator two sentences after using fear as a motivator with all that "we haven't secured our borders…" business. Hmmmm, it's almost as if all politicians are shamelessly cynical and make hysterical appeals to voters' fears in order to get elected. If it wasn't for elderly persons terrified that Republicans are going to cut their Medicare, Democrats would never get elected. Fear is the only motivator. It works. Why would anyone vote unless they were afraid of the wrong person winning? And speaking of the wrong person, the vapid Barack Obama generally managed to not embarrass himself and give away the fact that he's a lightweight. Although he completely blew it here:

The Rakish Brian Williams: Senator Obama, what are America's three most important allies around the world?

Obama: Well, I think the European Union as a whole has been a long-standing ally of ours, and through NATO we've been able to make some significant progress. Afghanistan, in particular, is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there.

YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED. The European Union has only been around for 15 years, and that's the first thing that pops into his head? He couldn't even name one country? NATO? Who the hell are you, Mr. Wussy Consensus-Builder? And where the hell did he pull Afghanistan out of? We're like God to Afghanistan – they're not our ally; they're our minion. I can't believe Obama didn't know who our greatest ally is. I guess I can understand that when you're under pressure you can blank out on a question with an obvious answer. But still, how could Barack not instantly be able to name America's greatest ally ever?



Can you think of a more perfect relationship? It's the single most lucrative trading partnership in the history of mankind. Where do you think most of our oil comes from – Saudi Arabia? Canada has always stood with America. And even though they didn't send troops to Iraq like Australia and Poland and Japan and El Salvador, they did pitch in on Afghanistan, so I'll give them props. But it's not about that – it's all about the glorious free trade that moves billions of dollars worth of fine products across our mutual border that makes Canada our greatest ally ever. And did I mention the oil? We love Canadian oil, they've got a TON of it. They've also got a generous welfare state and socialized medicine, meaning that they spend relatively little on defense and live under the implicit protection of the U.S. armed forces. Plus, they've got oil. Lots of oil in need of protection and a weak military…you know, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to that oil. It's a dangerous world out there, and security is a concern for all countries in North America, particularly ones with valuable oil reserves.

Now that I think about it, maybe Canada would be interested in turning over responsibility of protecting those oil reserves to America. After all, America essentially protects Canada now, so all I'm saying is maybe we could have the U.S. armed forces PERSONALLY protect Canada's oil reserves to ensure that these valuable resources are safe. We could send a few divisions ‘round and have them all locked down within hours, it would be no sweat. Because we'd hate to see anything bad happen to Canada's oil. Sometimes things happen that you can't predict – vandalism, sabotage, terrorist attack, what have you. And if any of those things were to happen to Canada's oil…that would be too bad. No one wants that. America can protect Canada's assets, and all we'll ask for is a nominal discount on future oil consignments. Take some time to think it over, Canada. I know you'll make a wise decision.

Now when Dennis Kucinich comes up with something like that, then maybe I'll vote again.