The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Taibbi on the debate||Date: 10/8/2012 10:45 AM|
|Author: anniesdad||Number: 1822214 of 2011170|
I didn't watch the debate – I just couldn't. I read it in transcript form afterwards. I know it is widely believed that Mitt Romney won, but I don't agree. I think both candidates lost. I think they both sucked. Romney told a series of outright lies – the bit about the pre-existing conditions was incredible – while Barack Obama seemed unaccountably disinterested in the intellectual challenge of the exercise, repeatedly leaving the gross absurdities hurled his way by Romney unchallenged.
Romney's performance was better than Obama's, but only if you throw out criteria like "wasn't 100% full of sh!t from the opening bell" and "made an actual attempt to explain who he is and what his plans are." Unfortunately, that is good enough for our news media, which drools over the gamesmanship aspects of these debates, because it loves candidates who sink their teeth into the horse-race nonsense that they think validates their professional lives.
So the answer to the question, "What will you do to rein in the biggest budget deficit in history?" comes down to, "I'll cut PBS, which is about one millionth of the federal budget, and some other stuff."
For God's sake – "I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke? That's worse than a Bill Belichick answer: "What's our plan against the Broncos? We're going to watch the film and do what's best for our football team."
Reporters should have instantly pelted Romney with bags of dogsh!t for insulting the American people with this ridiculous non-answer, but he was instead praised for the canny "strategy" hidden in the response"
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presiden...
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|