Skip navigation

Why, this guy, of course. Charlie Gibson––the guy with all those substantive questions. “Will you agree tonight to make the other your running mate?” That, of course, is a question to which we all already knew the answer. But it was worth it to see what appeared to be two candidates like deer in the headlights. Of course, it was, in fact, two candidates waiting for the moderator to do what moderators are suppose to do: direct the question to a particular individual. Instead, good-time Charlie throws out his snarky ” Not every one at once.” Yup, journalism at its best! Then Charlie raised this campaign to higher ground by resurrecting Rev Wright (who lies a molding in the grave), Bosniagate and the so-called bitter controversy. Yup, the electorate just can’t get enough of that stuff. Why talk vision and policy differences when we can watch the candidates skirm? Attaboy, Charlie. And kudos, to the caped crusader’s diminutive sidekick, George S. When Obama said he disowns his former Pastor’s remarks, Stephanopoulos shot back, “So now you disown him?” Alright, Georgie! Stirring it up!! By the third act, the two stooges actually asked some policy-related questions and Senator Clinton clearly performed strongly in this portion of the debate; but only after looking totally disengenious feigning bewilderment about Obama’s strange remarks about guns, God and racism. But, all and all, Charlie won this one. He led the debate with sensationalism and gave short shrift of the real issues. He made both candidates look stupid, and himself look clever. There must surely be a spot on FOX News for Charlie Gibson after last night. Clearly, he gets it. He’s the brand. He’s not a messenger. He’s the message. It’s enough to make me cling to guns and religion.



  1. OOH,snap!
    I like the way you ended the post.
    What the heck was Gibson trying to prove last night?

  2. The trouble with your comment is that there is no real substative policy differences between any of the three canidates. Why not make the presidential race a race of personality? Why not make it the American Presidential Idol?

    Determining how many troops should be in Iraq compared to Somolia or how much money should be spent on foreclousre releif or whether we should have an income tax or a national sales tax are not substitive issues. Everyone basically agrees with the central idea that government has the central role. Proportion and style are the issues, not substance.

    Here is an example of substance:

    What does the constitution say about the size and scope of government? How should our Constitution be applied to foreign policy, home foreclosures, God, guns, taxation,etc.?

    The founders labored to create a Constitution that would create a society governed by law and not by men. What we are seeing in these debates is a government (including the chattering classes) of men. Our founders would be ashamed and we should be ashamed as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: