[FoRK] Presidential Debate 2012
sdw at lig.net
Sat Oct 6 16:05:06 PDT 2012
> Presidential Debate 2012 <http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/presidential_debate_2012/>
> Oct 4, 2012 | General Nonsense <http://www.dilbert.com/blog/?TagID=1> | Permalink
> I apologize to my international readers who don't follow American politics, but as Emergency Backup Leader (EBL) I feel it is
> my duty to give my opinion on last night's presidential debate.
> I didn't watch the entire debate but I tuned in just in time to watch Mitt Romney use the President of the United States as a
> bar rag. I wondered if I was the only viewer who was thinking that one of the worst public speakers of all time was
> drop-kicking one of the best speakers of all time, but I see today that most pundits agreed on two points:
> 1. Romney lied 500% more than President Obama.
> 2. Romney totally won the debate.
> That tells you everything you need to know about the value of presidential debates. Sure, the fact-checkers weighed in
> afterwards, but by then the damage was done. Truth is literally an afterthought in politics, and apparently overrated.
> The thing that impressed me most about Romney's performance is that he invented an entirely new class of political lie that I
> have named the /pre-flop/. It's a vast improvement over his old flip-flopping ways. With the traditional flip-flop the thing
> you say today is the reverse of what you said in the past, and that can bite you in the ass. The pre-flop is a brilliant
> innovation that combines the flip and the flop in the same pledge. Allow me to paraphrase the debate to illustrate.
> *Romney:* My economic plan is (blah, blah)
> *President Obama:* Economists say your plan will increase the deficit by $5 trillion.
> *Romney:* I keep telling you that I won't do anything that increases the deficit.
> See? The flip-flop is built right into the campaign promise. It's an unmistakable wink to independent voters that he plans to
> be a pragmatist. Pragmatism looks like flip-flopping because it requires opinions to change as the situation and the available
> information change. It also means you'll lie to get elected, but it's just a strategy, and everyone does it, so don't worry.
> I think Romney has a hypnotist for an advisor, or at least someone skilled in the dark arts of psychology and influence. I
> just watched him repeatedly lie to me and came away thinking he'd be a good choice for managing the economy. I'm not saying he
> actually /would/ be a good choice, but he did something impressive: He made me think he wouldn't cut taxes at the same time he
> told his base he would. As a trained hypnotist myself, I rank his debate performance as breathtakingly brilliant. (Seriously.)
> Meanwhile, President Obama was learning the hard way that the worst time to have anniversary sex is right before a debate. He
> looked a bit too relaxed. I think he should have lit a cigarette, taken a long puff, exhaled, and told the crowd that Romney
> would do for the country what the President just did for the First Lady. That would be totally bad ass. Then he could toss in
> a zinger about how awesome the sex was right after killing Bin Laden. I think we all know that evening was ear muff time for
> the Secret Service.
> Jim Lehrer, who apparently died several months ago, moderated the debate. The pundits have been harsh on him today. But who
> else do you hire for the first debate? Do you hire someone who works for a Republican news network or someone from a Democrat
> news networks? Apparently the debate producers scoured the United States and decided that the only non-partisan left was a
> This is a good time to remind you that I don't support either candidate for president because neither of them meet my minimum
> standards, which frankly aren't that high. And I'm not convinced that voting for the lesser evil is better for the country in
> the long run than supporting low voter turnout which could create an opportunity for a third-party candidate someday.
> I'm looking forward to the second debate.
More information about the FoRK