Anyone who knows me would have known a politically oriented post would have made it onto this blog pretty fast. I didn't want to dissapoint them. For those who love CSI Miami, I'm going to dissapoint you by dedicating my next post to that show. Yes, you heard me. Dissapointed.
I watched the vice-presidential debate last night, and have to say that I've seen more orderly train wrecks coming out of India. Both candidates had a bad case of the stammers and the freudian slips, occasionally substituting their own names in place of their presidential candidates, and side-stepped tough questions just about as gracefully as the fat kid that was always targetted in dodge ball. (Ah, memories) The woman who moderated the fiasco was an overrated hack from PBS who at one point accidentally gave John Edwards a third chance to rebut Dick Cheney (which is, for us debate nerds, equivalent to wearing white after labour day... or for goths, wearing white at all). -Wow, I'm all about the type-casting and generalizations tonight. She also couldn't keep track of what the candidates were saying, and for the most part, sucked an egg large enough to make an omellet for a family of four.
I could go into specifics and pander to common themes expressed by every other idiot with a blogger and no life, (such as a play-by-play analysis of EVERYTHING) but I would like to point out something that few others seem to have talked about. Cheney was the better debater and was able to deliver his doctored facts a lot better than Edwards. Much to my chagrin, most analysts politely minced about this fact, and even the Republican pundits couldn't seem to organize themselves around this notion. There was one person who had less of a grasp of topics surrounding the whole election, and that was Bush, who is still licking his wounds and walking funny after the bruise-fest with Kerry last night. Here's where I touch on something that might start burrowing into the sub-concious of the American people. Cheney clearly demonstrated through his quasi-erudite explanations that he has a better handle on the running of the administration than his overlord. Now, for those of us in the know, this is about as startling a revelation as the fact that Ronald Regan was senile long before he left the oval office. I mean, really, who endorses something as monumentally stupid as putting weapons platforms into space to shoot down ICBMs travelling thousands of kilometres an hour. Oh, right, wait, that's still on the table. Morons. But I digress.
Anyhoo, even the most clueless American might have noticed a shocking contrast between Cheney and Bush. The kicker is that many American's haven't figured out that Cheney runs the country and dictates major policy. In fact, if they were ever going to discover this idea, these debates would give you an excellent idea. My point is that if Bush supporters start figuring out that the man some of them have deifed is the empty shell that the rest of us know that he is, then they might start questioning what exactly they are voting for. Naysayers of this theory might point out that most voters choose the party, or the team, or at least the values held by a candidate, etc., but seriously, folks, if you've been watching how badly the US networks were suckered into dwelling on the candidates Vietnam records, you would realize just how much American's crave people of what they perceive to be character. Most may not figure out that they are voting for a shell if they vote for Bush, but enough just might be irked enough to consider alternatives, for if they don't have faith in Bush, don't assume for a second that they would feel drawn to Cheney- there's a reason that he didn't run as President.
He's not pretty enough.
- ▼ 2004 (20)