On the Presidential Debate and Election

Okay, this is going to be a legitimate political post (or as much of a legitimate one as I can muster, seeing as I know next to nothing about politics and the issues). But first, you have to appreciate this gif at least as much as I do:

I read an interesting opinion article by George Farah today about the nature of the presidential debates. It basically talks about the Commission on Presidential Debates, claiming it has kept the election debates from actually being legitimate debates and that it ensures that candidates are asked safe questions, and even limits the number of debates the candidates actually have. I excerpted my fave parts from the article:

"This year's debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates...is a private corporation that was jointly created by, and for, the Republican and Democratic parties. In 1986, the parties ratified an agreement "to take over the presidential debates" from the nonpartisan league, and the commission has sponsored every presidential and vice presidential debate since.

"Undoubtedly, the commission's monopoly over the presidential debates has harmed our democracy. Without a [bipartisan] sponsor willing to criticize the Republican and Democratic campaigns, the debates are often structured to accommodate the wishes of risk-averse candidates, not voters.

"Because the candidates fear making a costly gaffe, fewer debates are held than necessary to educate voters. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times. Earlier this year, the Republican primaries featured an unprecedented 27 debates. The commission, meanwhile, has only scheduled three presidential debates this year.

"Even more troublesome, the few presidential debates held are often governed by rules that impede actual debate. Remarkably, contracts negotiated under the commission's tenure have prohibited the candidates from talking to each other. The contracts also require all questions posed by audience members during the town-hall debate to be prescreened . And the moderators are vetted by the candidates and thus unlikely to pose surprising questions.

"Third-party candidates also are routinely excluded from the commission's debates, even when a majority of voters support their inclusion."

But it's also an opinion piece, and this came up:

"Every four years, the commission demonstrates its fealty to the Democratic and Republican candidates. Behind closed doors, negotiators for the major party nominees draft secret contracts that dictate how the debates will be structure."

Laying it on a bit thick there, eh? Farah doesn't really give any evidence to back up the claim that the nominees draft secret contracts, and that all sounds pretty hokey to me. But for the most part I liked the article and the information he presented.

I have been making an effort to cast an informed vote in November, so I've tried to keep up with the candidates and what they stand for. I watched speeches at both the RNC and DNC, watched the presidential debate last night (and plan on watching the impending ones), and have been trying to do some online reading, but there's a problem. I'm getting a lot of information from Reddit and from my friends - all sources that are biased to the left and hate Romney. So my opinion is probably skewed. For the most part, I don't like the idea of Mitt Romney as the president. I like Obama - for the most part. I also like Jill Stein, but the system is so heavily stacked against third-party candidates that voting for anyone but Romney or Obama is a waste.

I watched the debate last night and tried to stay attentive, but I still ended up getting lost or confused with what the candidates were saying some of the time (I'm a political n00b, sorry). For example, when they were talking about Medicare/Medicaid: Obama said Romney wanted to turn it into a voucher system, and I don't really know what that means.

During the debate Romney came off as admittedly on-point and aggressive, but I wasn't entirely comfortable with what he was saying. For example, in the beginning of the debate he said that he supported green, renewable energy for future generations. The rest of the debate, however, he proclaimed "I love coal," said he supported the Keystone XL pipeline, and vowed that if he was elected he'd do his best to ensure America wasn't relying on imported oil. He even tried to attack the fact that Obama's backed green energy/companies.

EDIT: OH WAIT. I had a huge fit of rage when Romney was talking about healthcare and he was like, "I want to be able to choose my healthcare, I don't want the government to tell me what to do." SAY THAT TO MY VAGINA YOU REPUBLICAN JIZZSTICK. That made me angry, since the party he represents is trying really hard to dictate what I can do with my lady parts. I apologize for the crude words, but they felt really good to type out.

Mitt's stance on the military budget also makes me uneasy. He wants to keep funneling money into the military - money that, as Obama pointed out, is unrequested. Mitt would rather put more money into the military - and cut funding elsewhere to do so - when the military isn't even asking for federal money. To my understanding, war is now privatized in a lot of ways, and I don't think our military needs more federal money than it's already getting. Mitt also seems to want to keep an American presence in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, whereas Obama would like to systematically withdraw our troops; I support Obama on that issue.

People keep saying that Obama was too laid-back during the debate, but I think he was fine. To me he came off as calm and collected. In my opinion, Obama knows that Romney will most likely trip himself up (since that's all he's been doing lately, what with performing poorly diplomatically overseas and the leaking of the now infamous 47% video); it was almost noble of Obama not to take those cheap shots at Romney like he could have. But I also know nothing about rhetoric or debates, so don't listen to me.

Here are some things that have helped me learn more about this election and the two big candidates (just in case someone reading is as apolitical as I am):
1. "The 2012 Election: My Attempt To Be A Responsible Voter"
2. politifact.com
3. Was there a #3? I don't remember...

One last thing - watching the debate was actually fun for me. I was kinda proud of myself. I giggled a lot when Romney threw a tantrum about wanting the last word, and at how he kept interrupting everyone.

[Yes, tumblr was live-gif-ing the whole debate and yes of course I followed along.]

AND the classic moment when he said that if he's elected he'll cut federal funding to PBS. He said this to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. You know, the executive editor of PBS. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson was quick to come to Sesame Street's aid, tweeting that "Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive."

I hope Jim took a long, hot bubble bath after the debate last night, then fell asleep snuggling his wife and watching his favorite movie. He deserves at least that, after what Mitt put him through.