A Little Q&A

Last night, CNN held it's much-hyped YouTube debate. According to CNN, the debate was a "historical" forum which gave citizens "uncut" and "unfiltered" access to the candidates. According to me, CNN's description is hogwash.

CNN would like you to believe that this debate was a departure from televised debates in the past because of one fundamental difference: instead of being asked by a moderator, the questions featured in the debate were submitted by voters in the form of YouTube videos. At first glance, this looks very high-tech, shiny, hip, and revolutionary. Unfortunately, the assertion that this new addition to the television debate format changes the way television debates work in any meaningful way is plainly false. There is absolutely no difference in substance (although there is a difference in style) between the voter-submitted YouTube videos used in last nights debate and the voter-submitted written questions that have been the mainstay of televised debates for years. In both cases, the questions originate from ordinary citizens; presenting the questions in video form does nothing to make the debate more of a conversation with the American people.

And in both cases, the conversation with the American people is an illusion. Ultimately, the questions that get played or read on television have to pass through television producers who select the questions that they want asked. In all likelihood, the content of the debate would change very little if the producers wrote all the questions themselves.

But that doesn't really matter. Debates shouldn't be judged based on where the questions originate or how stylishly they're presented. They should be about candidates having rational discussions about the issues at hand in order to give voters a clear idea of what their individual positions are. I don't care if it's Jim Lehrer or your next-door neighbor Bernie asking Barrack Obama what his plan for Iraq is; I care about what Barrack Obama's plan is. Debates are about the answers, not the questions.

In that sense, the YouTube debate can be seen as a step backward for reasoned political discussion in America. As soon as the debate was over, an article on CNN.com boasted that,

"The lights and cameras were focused on the eight candidates, but it was the personal, heartfelt and, at times, comical nature of the user questions that stole the spotlight."

The title of the article?

"Questions, not answers, highlight YouTube debate"

Apparently, CNN believes that a good debate is one in which the issues are raised in an entertaining fashion, not one in which the candidates are able to examine those issues thoroughly. I don't want to be mean, but that's pretty dang stupid. Many people have accused television of watering down politics in this country, but very rarely has a television station been so open about the fact. If CNN wants to hold a truly groundbreaking debate, they should try giving the candidates more than a paltry thirty-seconds-to-a-minute to answer questions, and eliminate fluffy queries like "who was your favorite teacher and why?"

There are many things wrong with television debates, but I've never considered un-entertaining questions to be one of them. Nor is a lack of "conversation" between the people and the candidates the primary flaw in our political system. What we need is more in-depth public discourse on the issues facing our country, and CNN's YouTube debate did less than nothing to deliver this.

Hitler Obviously Had Better Hair.

Today, someone compared Bush to Hitler. Of course, certain people have been doing that for almost half a decade now, so the statement itself isn't all that shocking. What might be a little more shocking is the fact that the man making the dubious comparison wasn't just another marginalized, green-haired nut waving an obscenity-laden sign by the road. It was congressman Keith Ellison, America's very first Muslim member of the House.

[from The Telegraph]
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

[9/11 was] almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

Okay, so...

(1) Bush is a Hitler-esque dictator.

and yet...

(2) He lets members of congress openly label him as such.

Bush is the nicest evil dictator ever.

Creepy Video... Explained?

For everyone who was disturbed or confused by the video I posted featuring presidential candidate Mike Gravel staring into the camera and throwing a rock into a pond: fear not. Below is an interview in which the creepy guy himself explains the meaning of the video. Prepare to be enlightened.

Fighting Fire With Firefighters

Once upon a time, there was a man named John Kerry who wanted to be the President. Unfortunately, he didn't have looks, charisma, or name recognition. But he did have something the other guys didn't have: purple hearts. John Kerry was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, and he soon found that he could win support by emphasizing the fact that he was a war hero. Then the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth burst onto the scene: a bunch of guys who served with John Kerry in Vietnam and thought he was a low-down varmint who didn't earn his medals and betrayed the United States after his return. Whether or not the allegations were true, they stuck to him like some kind of ridiculous-looking adhesive baboon, and managed to destroy one of the most powerful pillars of the Kerry campaign. Needless to say, President John Kerry wasn't sworn into office on the 20th of January, 2005.

Flash forward to the present day, where a man named Rudy Giuliani is seeking the presidency. He should be a long-shot candidate: he sides against the vast majority of his own party on just about every hot-button issue out there. But up until now, none of that has mattered, because Giuliani is a decorated veteran of the War on Terror; the man who heroically led New York City during it's darkest hour. Running solely on his record as a hero, Giuliani, a liberal, east-coast politician, has managed to capture the heart of a party that's been controlled by bible-belt conservatives for over four decades. But now, Giuliani will have his own Swift Boat Veterans to deal with: the disgruntled firefighters of New York City. Yes, those firefighters. The ones you always see in pictures of 9/11, the ones standing at Rudy's side by the rubble of the twin towers. As it turns out, a lot of them actually think that Giuliani was a low-down varmint who mismanaged the response to 9/11 and caused the deaths of hundreds of NYC firemen. And they're going public with those allegations. This video, entitled "Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend", was created by the International Association of Firefighters to shatter Giuliani's seemingly unbreakable reputation as the hero of 9/11. Will this be the beginning of the end for the Giuliani campaign? We'll see...

Various Videos

In the absence of an actual article, here are a bunch of random videos combined with tiny articles that are definitely not actual. Read them, watch them, love them, or ignore them and move on to a more interesting part of the Internet.

Dumb Global-Warming-Type Video
This video, created by Madonna, is a promotional music video for Live Earth, Al Gore's miserable failure of a global-warming awareness concert. On the surface, it's a fairly slick music video made with a lot of quick cutting and emotional footage. Beneath the surface, it isn't anything at all. Just try paying attention to the lyrics for a few seconds and you'll probably notice something: the song was constructed entirely from a bunch of vague hippy-isms that don't even relate to the subject at hand, or any subject for that matter. There are a few visual gems to watch for as well: several shots of evil nuclear power plants, which happen to be carbon-emission free (they emit steam, not smoke); lots of wretched, impoverished children, who apparently became wretched and impoverished because of global warming; and middle-eastern Muslims, who would sooner behead an infidel like Al Gore than hug a tree, bowing in a mosque (which is obviously the green thing to do). On the plus side, this is probably the best Madonna music video ever, completely due to the total absence of the artist herself in the footage.





Video of a Scary Person of Color
There are two kinds of people in this world: scary people, and not-scary people. The person in this video is definitely one of the former. The question is, why was this on C-SPAN? Scary.





Video of a Scary White Guy
Mike Gravel is an obscure ex-senator from Alaska who happens to be running for president. He gained a big online following due to his over the top antics and anti-establishment ranting during the recent Democratic candidate debates. And he just made this video. If you can tell me what it means, you win a biscuit.



And that's about it.
(To people reading this on facebook: embedded videos don't work on facebook. Go to the actual blog, dagnabbit!)

But Who Had the Best Hair?

Last Saturday, the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief held a presidential forum in which six of the current GOP presidential candidates were given 20 minutes each to speak about the issues near and dear to the hearts of the event's sponsors: fiscal responsibility, tax reform, and Christian values. The event took place in Des Moines, or, as it shall henceforth be known, lil' Omaha , and was targeted at the coveted demographic of "People That Live In Iowa". I don't actually live in Iowa, but I came along anyways because there would be free food and the possibility of touching the hem of Mitt Romney's robe, which is rumored to possess miraculous healing properties. Unfortunately, no robe touching occurred in the course of the event, but I still got to see some semi-famous people in real life, which was reasonably awesome. Some of those semi-famous people did well, some didn't do so well, and some were freakishly bad. So, without further ado, this is my take on the performance (not necessarily the views) of each individual candidate:

Tommy Thompson
When I saw Tommy Thompson in person for the first time, I came away thinking that he was a loud, arrogant, egotistical jerk. After seeing him for a second time, I came away with the impression that he'd spent a long time refining his loud, arrogant, egotistical jerk routine into a masterpiece of the art form that will remain unsurpassed for generations to come. Watching Tommy Thompson speak was a bit like watching a rhinoceros trampling on a herd of chihuahuas: tragic, but strangely hilarious. I could write a three-volume book on the many facets of weirdness his speech contained, but I'll try to restrain myself. Just remember: if a friend asks you to vote for Tommy Thompson, turn around, walk away, and never speak to that person again. Someone like that is clearly unstable and poses a serious risk to your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being.

Worst line: "You better beg God that you nominate Tommy Thompson!"
I don't think so Tommy.

Mike Huckabee
Coming right after Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee was like a fresh gust of wholesome country air. He was funny, he was polished, he was humble, and he was so darn nice that he could shoot your dog, look you in the eyes and say "I killed your dog", and you would still want to give him a hug and a sizable donation. Needless to say, the communication experience he gained as a pastor clearly paid off. He may not win the nomination (due in part to paltry media coverage), but whoever does get the nomination should seriously consider making Huckabee their running mate.

Sam Brownback
I think Brownback is a nice guy with a good heart and good views. Unfortunately, he talks with a numbing, Al-Gore-esque monotone that lacks anything that resembles charisma. He attempted to add some folksy appeal to his speech with farm anecdotes and references to Sunday school values, but in the end he failed to convince anyone that Sam Brownback is the man we need in the oval office. We need good people in the Senate, and in my opinion, that's where Brownback should stay.

Mitt Romney
It was kind of weird watching Romney on stage. While the other candidates participated in the event, Romney transcended the event, in a decidedly non-Buddhist way. Instead of quibbling about the technicalities of public policy, or attacking the views of the leading candidates, he spoke about a broad, inclusive vision for America's future, and acted like he was the only Republican candidate running for the presidency. The other candidates are focusing on winning the primaries, but Romney is already running for the general election. I don't know if this attitude of inevitability will ultimately hurt or help him, but a few things are certain: he sounds like a president, he looks like a president, and a lot of voters in key states want him to be their president. I don't like Romney personally, but I think he has the potential to go far. Will we see a Romney-Huckabee ticket in 2008? Maybe.

Tom Tancredo
This one was the shocker of the evening. Tom Tancredo, a bottom-tier candidate who was terrible in the debates, absolutely blew the crowd away. His on-fire conservative rhetoric was Limbaugh-esque in it's resonance with the audience; the air was positively electric. Tancredo said the right things in the right way, and gave a voice to all the people who are sick and tired of the do-nothing GOP leadership in Washington. It was enough to fill any red-blooded Republican with the urge to bust into a meatpacking plant and start rounding up illegals. His views and adversarial attitude are so polarizing that I don't think he has a chance in the general election, but who knows? As Barry Goldwater said when he ran for president in '64, the Republican party needs to offer a "choice, not an echo". Of course, Goldwater ended up losing, but it's thought that counts.

Duncan Hunter
To sum him up in one word: disappointing. Duncan Hunter did very well talking in thirty-second bursts during the debates, but he appears to be unable to effectively communicate for an extended amount of time. He began with a long, rambling anecdote about Americas dependency on foreign countries for obscure components of military equipment, and continued on that same note for the rest of the speech. He couldn't seem to get off the subject of the military, which is an important topic to be sure, but not the only one. I came away thinking that Duncan Hunter might make a great Secretary of Defense, but a great President? Forget about it.

---

I'll try to post clips from the forum once they become available (CSPAN should have the whole thing on their website on the fourth of July).