Booo... no train wrecks in the Biden-Palin debate
Ok, that debate was really boring. No train wrecks, no big gaffes, although I didn't expect Joe Biden (the "attack dog" of the Democratic ticket) to have an emotional moment. But really, I wish there was a way for the moderator to hold the debaters to ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION!!
MODERATOR: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care?
PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases....
*Huh?! Answer the question!*
BIDEN: Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.
MODERATOR: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?
PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again...
*FACT*: The first section was actually on the subprime economic meltdown...
Ugh, and it went on and on... Now I feel guilty that I didn't spend that time watching the Canadian election leaders' debate, though I'm planning on catching up on it tonight. At least THESE people had some fun playing Palin bingo...
posted by Dennis @ 5:35 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Hi Dennis,
Does this or another, similar debate really matter in a broad sense? Here's an opinion to justify the claim:
"People in the United States and the Soviet Union have had broadly similar
attitudes toward politics. In the US, this is often referred to as "voter
apathy", but it might be more accurately described as non-voter
indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systematically
corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The US has two
entrenched, systematically corrupt political parties, whose positions are
often indistinguishable and which together hold a monopoly on power. In
either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United
States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on
power seem more sportsmanlike.
In the US, there is an industry of political commentators and pundits
which is devoted to inflaming political passions as much as possible,
especially before elections. This is similar to what sport writers, and
commentators do to draw attention to their game. It seems that the main
force behind political discourse in the US is boredom: one can chat about
the weather, one's job, one's mortgage and how it relates to current and
projected property values, cars and the traffic situation, sports, and,
far behind sports, politics. In an effort to make people pay attention,
most of the issues trotted out before the electorate pertain to
reproduction: abortion, birth control, stem cell research and similar
small bits of social policy are handled about rather than settled, simply
because they get good ratings. "Boring" but vitally important strategic
issues such as sustainable development, environmental protection and
energy policy are studiously avoided.
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social
ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why should
essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce
designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In
Soviet-era Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the
Communists: paying attention to them, whether through criticism or praise,
would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement, making them feel
as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with
regards to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and
elephants?"
Dmitry Orlov "Reinventing Collapse", pp. 114-115
Oops: in the above "bits of social policy are handled" should be "bits of social policy are bandied". Cheers, Saynotopolitics.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home