This blog is now retired. My new site is at: Predictably Irrational.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

The First Debate

I was excited about the first presidential debate.

During the 2008 elections, I watched several of the debates. It was the first time twitter was around for debates, as well as Facebook, and I remember tweeting and facebooking comments during the debate. I think I was alone in the world of FB with my comments (within my social circle) but I had fun.

I planned a menu for the debates: homemade chicken nuggets, cheese fries and fried shrimp for the vegetarian. Nice and healthy. :)

I was excited about getting the kids involved. At least they could watch some of it (I mistakenly thought the debate would begin at 8PM), just to get a gist of how these things took place, and then they could go off and watch something else. After all, these things could be quite a bore for someone who might even be remotely interested in politics.

Alas, the debate didn't start until 9 and the girls would be tucked away by then, so they would miss out. Tim would also be in bed soon...he stayed up for a few to hear Mittens repeat nothing for 15 minutes before he got tired of it.

Me? I stayed up for the entire thing.

Unlike everyone in the media and a few of my disappointed friends, I did not thing Obama "lost". I didn't think Mittens won. I call it a flop, personally. I was disappointed in the questions (were there any? I think there was one and the rest was hijacked). But most of all, I wanted theatrics. Remember the debate with John McCain, where he starts wandering around the stage? That's what I wanted. I realize the format was not structured for wandering. But I wanted to see more movement, more veins popping out, hair pulling, yelling, you know, a good ole-fashion 2008 debate that was fun to watch and listen to! Not this lame, boring, yawn-fest that we were subjected to on October 3rd.

My set up: up to four twitter pages: one following #debate, one following Michael Moore, which, well, I absolutely LOVE Michael Moore but he was a bit on the boring side during the debate, another following @witorsch, who said he was "IN" on the debate follow but actually wasn't, and another following Markos Moulitsas from the Daily Kos.

I also had my Facebook page up, Daily Kos - in which I frantically tried to find their live blog because it appeared I had to keep refreshing the page to get updates, and THIS is not a live blog, The Huffington Post and the tumblr page in which my teen BFF pointed me to, where I assumed some of my teen writing club friends were hanging out. This, by far, was my favorite place to be because this was the YOUTH of America who were assessing the debate far more intellectually (in places) than in all of the other places I was at.

Sure, there were the other silly posts, but so were the Bill Mahers' and my favorite from some random guy:

Anyway, yes, like many Obama proponents, I am disappointed that Obama didn't go for the jugular. Why didn't you attack Romney on his 47% comment?
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
This is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard and I welcome the ad that plays it everyday. I want everyone to hear this EVERY. DAY. Why? Because this is what this man thinks. This is what I think most republicans, conservatives, the stereotypical ignoramus thinks about poor people, mexicans, blacks, people on welfare, people that work at 7 eleven, the single mom. But not the single dad.

If that's you, then shame on you. You probably consider yourself a christian too. You go to church, study your bible, pat yourself on the back about how good of a person you are, then turn around and think this about other people.

THIS IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE THINK. How do I know? I don't. But I don't assume this is how other people think because I am not a god, I am not a seer, I don't read people's minds and I have no knowledge that other people do this kind of thing nor do I think they do. You may have heard one story, and it was probably told to you by someone in your church, or in a bar (if you're not a christian but you're just an ignoramus), or in passing, that someone was on welfare but they really made 40 grand a year and were cheating the government.

Or you heard another made up story about someone who didn't want to work and just took advantage of the government and got unemployment checks, or welfare checks, or subsidies, or disability or something else.

And now that's your stereotype of all people who are a minority, poor, or single mothers, or uneducated, or whatever.

And that's why you support republicans, and Romney, but you don't really like Romney because he's mormon but you hate Obama because either he's Black, muslim (you know he's not, right?), or because he's really a Democrat. Weellll FUCK YOU. Because it's bullshit.

And BTW, who are these 47% that he's talking about? More details here but the majority of them are the elderly. The TPC - Tax Policy Center - did a study on how people were moved off the income tax rolls. The numbers below are based on roughly half the population, or 46% in the report:
"The TPC found that of the 38 million households that are made nontaxable by tax expenditures, “44% are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30% by credits for children and the working poor.”


  1. I agree with you on several points. It didn't seem like Obama was *that* bad as the media is portraying him. But they have to declare a "winner" and Mitt was a bit more animated.

    I also thought overall it was kinda boring! Where was the drama and the attacks and trying to hold people accountable?

    We ordered the Jon Stewart vs. Bill OReilly "Rumble" from pay-per-view for $5. It was MUCH more entertaining and interesting and talked a lot more in dept about some of the issues.

    I think it is kind of a shame that everything has to be so polished and perfected now. The candidates have both practiced and have their soundbites and "facts" and that's all they say. They don't seem like real people.

    Couldn't believe the 47% non-mention.

  2. I wasn't sure how the Jon Stewart vs. O'Reilly debate was being shown. I would've paid $5 to see that had I known it was on PPV. I thought it was just a comedy central special. Darn.

    I look forward to Thursday's VP debate. I really dislike Paul Ryan passionately. How any free-thinking woman -- and why wouldn't all women be free thinkers? but I imagine there are many who follow their husband's lead, especially in politics -- would support him is mind-numbing to me. JUST MIND NUMBING.

  3. I love your fire, if you ran for pres I would vote for you, but I think you are too smart for that...
    About the 47% non-mention, I believe it was wise to not mention it as I'm sure they had a strategy worked out to handle it. It was probably something like "I was wrong for saying that and I apologize, if I'm elected president I will work for the 100%". an obvious ploy to make him look good by apologizing, and not giving him that chance in front of a such a huge audience was probably wise. now that the debate is over he can only apologize via press events. which I believe he has been