Why the debate will be meaningless

|
(3)
The prez: Looking for love in very few places

Other than not making any stupid mistakes, the presidential candidates have one goal for the Oct. 3: "debate" -- and it's the reason not much of substance is going to come out of either one's mouth.

See, this isn't a national campaign at this point; it's all about winning over a few hundred thousand undecided voters in about nine states. Which means that Romney and Obama are going to be talking to a few hundred thousand people mostly in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio.

And who, exactly, are "undecided voters" at this point? Who, after everthing that's been said and done in a campaign that features two very different candidates with completely different visions for the country, still can make up his or her mind?

Think about that. Think about what kind of a cautious, all-things-to-all-people, America-is-great-if-we-all-work-together kind of message Obama and Romney have to craft to reach the tiny and politically bizarre group that could still change this election. That's what you're going to see on the TV screen.

Oh, you'll see Romney try to knock Obama off balance with some sort of attack or quip or zinger. Not likely to work. You'll see Obama try to be as presidential as possible, and Romney trying to look august and presidential, too. A lot of it's visuals.

But really, there won't be much "debate," since both candidates have memorized canned responses to every possible question.

It's a show for a micro-audience. Just remember that when you tune in.

 

Comments

You left out the biggest reason that the debate is meaningless: there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties owned by the corporate elite. A vote for either one supports continued militarism, preemptive war, extrajudicial assassinations, austerity for the vast majority, tax breaks and bailouts for the corporations, etc. In short, capitalism for the masses, socialism for the rich.

Also, the Commission on Presidential Debates excludes non-corporate parties with alternative philosophies--for example, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party.

Ralph Nader, no radical, wrote an excellent piece about the debate. Check out today's counterpunch.org.

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

That's the only rational response. As Nader notes, "The three upcoming so-called presidential debates (actually parallel interviews) between Obama and Romney show the pathetic mainstream campaign press for what it is – a mass of dittoheads desperately awaiting gaffes or some visual irregularity by any of the candidates. The press certainly does not demand elementary material from the candidates such as the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns that controls the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the campaigns’ corporate offspring.

"A similar secret contract between George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004, obtained by George Farah, executive director of Open Debates (www.opendebates.org) showed just how the two Parties rig the debate process. Both Parties agreed that they would: (1) not request any additional debates, (2) not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, and (3) not accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format. Were this deal to be between two corporations, they could be prosecuted for criminal violation of the antitrust laws."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/02/rigging-the-presidential-debates/

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

perhaps write a cook book or something .....

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:55 am