Midterm Debate between Boehner and Obama
YES!
Come on, Weepy the Orange — put down the bottle, step slowly away from the tanning booth and face the voters.
Jonathan Alter says:
“As long as he's venturing onto would-be House Speaker John Boehner's turf, Obama might as well challenge him to debates this fall on the future of the country.”
He also suggests the possibility of debates between Boehner and Nancy Pelosi; or Obama and Joe Biden debating Boehner and Mitch McConnell. In that match-up, the president and vice president would be grossly outnumbered. If you counted all of McConnell’s chins, it would be fifty-three against two.
Can you imagine Obama and/or Biden in a face to face discussion with either of those two pitiful Wall Street puppets? Those two buttwipes can barely recite what their corporate owners have instructed them to say.
A debate would show the public once and for all that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer except legislative holds, filibusters and “NO.” And for that reason, this debate will never happen. Why face your opponent one on one, in front of God and everybody, when you can just hide behind a billion dollars worth of attack ads and hit pieces.
In any case, Obama should challenge Boehner to a debate. When the sobbin’ sot says no, use it as a campaign issue. As Alter says, this debate would:
“…allow the president a chance to do what he has done poorly so far, which is to frame the choice. To me, it's a simple one: rebuild America (with public-private infrastructure projects to put the middle class back to work) versus more tax cuts for those making over $1 million.”
Labels: Joe Biden, John Boehner, Jonathan Alter, Mitch McConnell, Obama Boehner debate, Weepy the Orange
posted by Tom Harper @ 3:11 PM
9 Comments:
He did that last year with the whole republican caucus and wiped the floor with them. Those poor bastards one on one with him, don't stand a chance. Why do you hate America Tom,, you would put these good men in with PO to stand up for what they believe in?
The problem Tom is, you are using logic and rational thought. Drones and lackies do not do that. Not to mention that there is an additive in D.C.'s water which prevents office holders from committing any acts which might be construed as the right thing to do.
My name ain't Jaded for nuttin'.
"Junket John" Boehner often debates Jack Daniel, once he's 3/4 through the bottle and Jack suddenly starts talking to him.
If this were to happen, a dum would have to do two things: 1)list his/her complicity in the continued fuckery of Murka, and 2)use facts to disarm his/her opponent, and that can get icky and, worse, incur the wrath of radio blowhards.
"Hey Beavis, he said boner,hehe"
Boehner- what a huge dickhead.
Debates would be worthwhile, for just the reason you state, Tom. But I don't think Obama and Biden should do the debating. When you're a president, you don't battle down, only across. Obama's next debate should be with a competing presidential candidate.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and Durbin are quite capable of laying waste to their Party of No counterparts.
(Good one about McConnell's chins. ;) )
Jess: That's true, he did wipe the floor with them last year. If we were a smarter country, that kind of debate would have more impact on the public than a bunch of mindless attack ads.
jadedj: Logic and rational thought -- Doh! They keep getting in the way. I'm trying to be a good drone but it ain't easy.
JR: Jack Daniels probably talks more sense than Junket John.
Randal: Uh oh, we wouldn't want to incur the wrath of the radio blowhards. I can't imagine what that would be like.
SW: Good point about who should do the debating. That same article also suggested Pelosi vs. Boehner as a possibility. In any case it would be refreshing to have some of the biggest issues discussed one on one instead of dueling attack ads.
I like the idea of a debate, but in recent years the GOP has proven that simple slogans and platitudes go a lot farther than straight facts in shaping public opinion.
If we could be assured that Obama and Democrats would go for the jugular and not intellectualize everything, it might be fun.
Otherwise, it would just be an excruciating extension of what we are witnessing now in America, which is the acceleration of the dumbing-down of the electorate to the point where all someone has to do to win a debate or shape an opinion is simply put their opponent on the defensive.
Once that is accomplished, simple moronic bloodlust takes over, and (figuratively speaking) people take on the form of vultures waiting for the aggressor to finish beating the opponent to a bloody pulp. It doesn't seem to matter about the presentation of facts, as long as the opponent is on the ropes and there is the scent of blood in the air. Once the "debate" gets to that point, it's pretty much over.
Flip-charts, statistics, and just plain facts seem to no longer matter if there are some good accusations being thrown around.
If our country can recover from its current pugilistic, punitive right-wing-leaning stupor, maybe about 3-4 years from now the pendulum will swing back to the left again once voters have seen what happens once "stupid" has had a few years to run Congress and the Senate. But until that time, "stupid" really seems to be in vogue.
Post a Comment
<< Home