Not Again

I watched (more or less) the Republican debate last night. What a, you should pardon the expression, clusterfuck. Herewith, my reaction to this debacle:

Does anyone even know what a debate is anymore? Granted, this was a YouTube debate, and that's cool, but this was clearly an opportunity for the better known candidates (aka, those leading in the polls) to show off, while the lesser known candidates got virtually no airtime. I still don't even know the names of the people at either end of the stage, only the ones in the middle. This is the same for the Democratic debates too, so this is really something wrong with the news media and not with the candidates or parties themselves. And apparently, The League of Women Voters agrees with me.

Let's talk candidates. Rudy Giuliani: what in the hell is wrong with him? He thinks he can make up stuff as he goes along, whether it's rules of the game or the so-called "facts" and that everyone will believe him because HE SAYS SO. Let me remind you all that he did the right thing one day as mayor of New York; before that, half the city was walking around wearing anti-Rudy buttons. He was not a good mayor nor was he a well-liked mayor. He is a bully and resorts to strong-arm tactics. His finger should not be on the button or anywhere near the button.

Fred Thompson: I almost felt sorry for him. He is just in way over his head. I don't think he has a chance at this point, which is fine. Let him retire, or give him another series. I don't think he knows his ass from his elbow. Just because Ronald Reagan was an actor, it doesn't mean we should elect another actor and he'll be another Reagan. Let us recall that Reagan was very involved in politics at many levels before he became president, including starting out as the president of his union.

Ron Paul: Uh ... what? I don't think he's electable, and I don't get him. Is he a Republican or a Libertarian or what? Does he actually think that the answer is to get rid of all the parts of government that he doesn't care for? Huh?

Mike Huckabee: He's cute and all, and he's said some things I like, but in general, it is a very bad idea to elect someone as president of the United States who doesn't believe in science, and who would use the position to put forth his personal religious agenda. Worried about Romney being a Mormon (as many people seem to be)? Huckabee is an ordained minister of the conservative Christian right. People who are not in that group themselves see this as a real threat.

Mitt Romney: He's pretty, isn't he? He looks like he could be the president in a movie. I don't find his religion to be particularly a factor, although I know it is for a lot of people, and I understand why. What I don't like about him is that he will change his position on things to suit which voters he thinks he needs to curry favor with at the moment. He was the liberal governor of a liberal state (Massachusetts) and had all policies appropriate to that at that time. Now he tries to explain away his different stances by saying that "people grow" over time. Yes, they grow into hypocritical vote seekers with no actual personal stand on issues.

I think that in general, the illegal immigration issue is the hot-button distraction issue of this election, as gay marriage was last time. The only thing is, you can't really find anyone who takes the position "Illegal immigration? Super! I'm all for it!" No one is actually in favor of it (despite what it says on the Statue of Liberty, lest we forget that), but each candidate accuses the others of being soft on it, or something similar. Once again, they all sounded like morons. The idea of building a wall to keep out the Mexicans is the funniest one, I think. It ain't gonna work, folks! Those things never do. (See Hadrian's Wall and the Great Wall of China, for example.)

I thought the most poignant question came near the end, when the retired Brigadier General asked (via YouTube) if the candidates didn't think that our soldiers were professional enough to serve alongside gay people without trouble, and the candidates jumped right on this, how we shouldn't ask them to serve with gay people, and how it was up to them, and we had to do what the military wanted. The elderly general was in the audience and asked follow-up questions, including closely questioning Romney on an earlier statement that he looked forward to the day when gay men and women served in our armed forces alongside everyone else. Romney back pedaled, and tried hard to get away from it, but the general, his voice weak, persisted. Once it became clear that all the candidates were going to support no gays in the military (it's a distraction, you know), the general revealed that he had come out after retiring after four decades (I think) in the military, and that it had never been an issue or problem for anyone he knew of in service. So then they all looked like idiots, and hurried to thank him for his service, but no one said "Hey, maybe you're right and it doesn't make a difference."

And then I watched Project Runway, where at least the contestants behaved like real human beings, and went to sleep. Damn. I wish I had someone decent to vote for for president.

(And when I got home today, I watched an episode of The Golden Girls, of course, and Rose had a dog that she said "could find anything." "Anything?" asked Sophia, and Rose nodded. Sophia turned to the dog and said "Go! A viable Democrat to run for president!" So that must have been 1988, I'm thinking. Was that the Dukakis election? Looks like Sophia didn't get her wish.)

WATCHING LAW AND ORDER :: ENTRY #1636