Hello Morbo, how's the family?

I always kind of consider it a duty to watch the debates. Voters should be, above all, acting on complete information when making their political decisions. Despite my general libertarianism, on my less optimistic days I really get hung up on the fact that the unintelligentsia in this country have way too much power. That's why I always feel obliged to watch, despite knowing that I won't learn anything either way. Without getting into Joe Sixpack's IQ, I find that what I consider a duty is now fast becoming a chore.

Watching these debates is not only a snore (hey it rhymes with chore), it's an angry snore. Kind of like that episode of the Simpsons where they were talking about TV viewers reacting with yawns... angry yawns.

This is what passes for political discourse (put into easier-to-understand vernacular):

Politician X: [Politician Y] voted for [unpopular-sounding bill]. I opposed [unpopular-sounding bill].
Politician Y: I can categorically say that I never supported [unpopular-sounding bill]. In fact, what [political X] is saying is untrue. Now, what I did vote for was [popular-sounding bill].
Politician X: Well, you just have to look at our records. [Politician Y] clearly voted for [unpopular-sounding bill]. Now, I just want to take this opportunity to talk about [unrelated hot-button issue] ...

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

There's no substance, it's just the same crap over and over again. It's the same when discussing their plans for the future. Not only do they keep reiterating the same plans (Obama's 95%, McCain's $5000 tax credit), without change or elaboration, the attacks on their opponents plans remain the same. For example, the small business taxation question. McCain claims Obama's tax plan stifles small businesses, Obama refutes it by saying that only x% (2% I think is the number) make more than $250,000 anyways. P.S. I find this to be incredibly dubious... even if every employee at hypothetical PreemCroft Enterprises is making $25k a year, that means only 2% of all companies have more than 10 employees? Crazy-talk. Anyways, I heard that same exact argument last week! The same! So why are we still having this conversation? These debates are the epitome of vapid, and nothing more than repetitive, unenlightening political shadow-boxing.

Where have we gotten in American politics where it's actually good debattical form to completely sidestep a direct question? I saw this tonight. Is Russia the same evil empire that the Soviet Union was -- and Brokaw even SAID "this is a yes-or-no question" -- that was the question. NO! For the love of God NO! For so many reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has read more than two (2) news articles about Russia!! And that's a question that doesn't really even have any political consequences -- nobody gives a shit if either candidate makes a misstep on Russia, especially not Nascar McTurnipTruck of Mulletsville, USA. Yet still... still! it is okay, even seemingly encouraged, to say "Maybe," as McCain did (verbatim, that's what he said). Obama did no better, but his answer was verbose so I refuse to quote it.

My point is that it has become accepted, nay standard procedure, to be vague, evasive, and vomit the same plans over and over again. While I'm no debate historian, and I'm sure it's been this way for the past couple of decades, it takes what should be an intellectual conversation and turns it into something wholly unilluminating. It's the opposite of intellect. There is nothing to gain for me to listen to these debates, aside from self-satisfaction having fulfilled what I believe to be a duty of all American voters. And even that is worth less and less.