Remember when presidential debates used to mean something? I do. I remember watching Warren Harding walk right over to Ohio Governor James M. Cox in 1920 and punch him in the groin. Those were the good old days I guess, before rebuttal time limits and strict no-nudity policies. When Herbert Hoover proudly waved his genitals in the face of Democratic candidate Alfred E. Smith and his call for the repeal of the Volstead Act, we knew that America truly was the home of the free. At least it was that day back in 1928, the last year during which any decent music was made.
These days people already have their minds made up. They just listen to what their candidate says and they ignore what the other might say against it. They don't remember the way it used to be, when the audience at presidential debates were allowed to join in, be it to ask an insightful question, point out a candidate's hypocrisy, or just to shoot at their feet to make them dance in fear. Now we just sit back and wait to be told what to think by the mainstream media and their talking heads.
Now I'm not saying that the long tradition of presidential canditates coming together to discuss important topics, like the economy or whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to visit other homosexuals in hospitals, is completely useless. I just don't think that the current methods allow for the American people to gain a full grasp of each candidate's platform so that they might make a truly informed decision come November 4th. And just a few simple adjustments, like loosening restrictions on taser usage during closing statements, would help reverse the trend of these debates toward obsolescence.
Posts
2 comments:
What this country needs is a VP/Presidential Thunderdome death match-- "Two Candidates Enter! One Candidate Leaves!"
It's been a while, but I do recall that watching a Sarah Palin interview was one of the potential punishments on The Wheel, inbetween Gulag and Aunty's Choice.
Post a Comment