« The China Syndrome | Main | GOD 2000 »

October 11, 2000

The Great and Not So Great Debates

My natural inclination here is to talk about this past week's debates, the first one between Presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush and the second one, between Vice Presidential candidates Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. Sure, I could talk about Gore's make-up job that made him look like a client at a discount funeral parlor or a madame at a third rate bordello. I could talk about his incessant heavy breathing that made him sound like an obscene phone caller.

I could talk about how funny it was watching Bush tip-toe around the abortion issue, not wanting to offend the religious right, while not wanting to lose the women's vote. I could talk about how funny it was to watch Gore discuss Yugoslavian President-elect Kostunica, and Serbia's relationship with Montenegro, blatantly taunting Bush, knowing full well that any attempt by Bush to pronounce these names would likely have ended in disaster.

I could talk about how they sounded like two kids in a schoolyard when discussing their tax plans, repeating the same charges over and over again. I fully expected one of them to say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

However, I've decided not to talk about the debates. At least not these debates.

Not so much because I was flipping back and forth between the baseball playoff games, which I was. The problem is that this paper is a weekly, and chances are you've already heard some of what I've said somewhere in the more immediate, daily media. Breaking news for a weekly is a tricky proposition. You'll never hear someone on TV say "Flash! Last week the UN announced..."

A weekly is at a disadvantage and any story big enough to make the Boston dailies, is often old hat by the time you pick up your weekly. The headline in the local paper may as well read: "Hitler Invades Poland."

Thus I've decided to critique some debates of more renown and of greater historical significance, the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. There were a series of seven debates. I'll stick with the first.

Mr. Douglas:
My distinguished opponent is decidedly against the Dred Scott decision. He and his Republican brethren feel that it is monstrous because it denies that the Negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution. It is my contention the states should decide for themselves what course to choose.

Mr. Lincoln: Your mama.

Of course the man who penned the Gettysburg Address didn't exactly respond with "your mama" but in the interest of saving time, I have encapsulated the essence of his reply.

Mr. Douglas:
I mean not to belittle Mr. Lincoln. Indeed I have many sympathies with him. But it was I who insisted while in the Senate, that Illinois pay off its debt.

Mr. Lincoln:
Yeah, like you'll ever be on a five-dollar bill.

It's been well documented that Lincoln had a premonition of his death. It is a little known fact that he also had a premonition of himself being on U.S. currency.

Mr. Douglas:
I drink Lite Beer because it tastes great.
Mr. Lincoln:
I drink it because it's less filling.

OK, so there was no Lite Beer in the 1850's. I am merely attempting to show, in modern terms, the difference between the two men. Lincoln wins this point because he knows that Lite Beer is just a watered version of regular beer, and one can more easily argue that it's "less filling" than "tastes great."

Well I hope that this has been some help in your decision making, but frankly I doubt it.

Posted by dmargarita at October 11, 2000 3:16 PM