McCain and Obama: A Flaccid Debate

I suppose there were those that suffered through the first presidential debate, hoping that somehow this historic event would be all it was billed to be. Those folks should have known better.

Instead of a debate for the ages (considering the stakes), all we got was the same talking points we’ve been hearing for months. Poor Jim Leherer tried throw the switch and bring those two to life, but to no avail. Between the mind numbing talking points, and the resulting schoolyard rebuttals, it would be a miracle to have any idea who was telling the truth, and what either of these two would do in the White House.

“Tax cuts for 95%” “The surge worked-admit it,” and on and on. Leherer inadvertently pegged both of these guys though. When he asked what part of their plan for the country they would change, given the current economic crises, both of them looked a little heavier in the back of the drawers, and neither one really gave an answer. McCain wants to cut the waste. Isn’t that what he wanted to do before? Obama still wants the tax cuts, still wants to free us from foreign oil, still wants healthcare for all…Leherer was asking him how the hell he was going to pay for all that!

Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was ready to step in had McCain decided not to show. That might have made it a classic. The Republicrats were having none of that…

The World of RJJRDQ

This entry was posted in America, corruption, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to McCain and Obama: A Flaccid Debate

  1. Tom Prete says:

    Hi, RJJRDQ, and thanks for your comments on my own analysis of the debate. Would that all presidential debates were “for the ages.” Unfortunately, almost none of them are. Still, they sometimes accomplish the purposes the participants intend, which is the only thing that brings them there.

  2. Flaccid is definitely an accurate description…

  3. saysalice says:

    I actually don’t think Lehrer did very well at all as a moderator. He made about two comments about the candidates talking to each other, and that was it. He also failed to rein them in when they ran over time.

    However, my judgment may have been clouded since I was watching with Carole Simpson, moderator of the ’92 debate, and she wasn’t approving of Lehrer either.

  4. rdxdave says:

    I agree with “saysalice” Lehrer did a bad job. He kept goading the two into a fight. They should stick to the Lincoln Douglas format from now on.

  5. rjjrdq says:

    I think they should field questions from people off the street…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s