Here we go again...Rigged "debates"

It is OK to say "I told you so". I decided to see what was up in the Republican debate. There is no Democratic debate, so I already know what's up in that camp.

More important than what anyone had to say was the way the questions were asked and the way two candidates were given main stage. Since when is what goes on in Texas or Massachusetts the relevant topic that candidates for federal office should address?

"Candidate X, what do you think of what Rick did in Texas? Of what Mitt did in Massachusetts? Rick, Mitt, would you like to respond? Candidate Y, whose response did you like best? blablabla" Then the AP reports on radio say, "All eyes were on Perry and Romney". Really. Last time the manipulation was transparent enough. This time I guess they think people have simply quit thinking altogether, and they may be right.

It is very clear that none of the journalists asking questions have the slightest idea of how the country is structured or why. They think we are like Denmark or some small homogenous culture which runs on a uniform set of rules and agencies. They are idiots. "Where would you draw the line on the federal government's powers?", they ask a constitutionalist. Holy smoke, Moron, a constitutionalist draws the line where it is drawn in the friggin constitution. That is the purpose of the document.

Although you can be forgiven, Mr Moron moderator, in light of the fact that we may have had only one or two presidents and probably no congresses who've actually paid attention to that fact. And many a supreme court which believes it is all a matter of semantics and spirit and purpose of the law be damned.

Like the anchor baby thing. That law was never meant to be a conduit for people to abuse the immigration system. It was put in place so that ex-slaves would not be disenfranchised when slavery was abolished. Some shrewd lawyer figured out how to circumvent the spirit of the law to serve some other purpose. Now, few people realize how or why the law got there. They just abuse it and allow others to do the same.

The questions addressed to Ron Paul weren't questions but combative challenges. Everyone else was pretty much asked if they like Rick or Mitt better. Then they'd let Mitt or Rick respond. Most of Paul's time was wasted by the panelist who conducted his own mini-debate against whatever Paul had to say.

The other people were grossly marginalized. I find this a real shame. I'm not one of those who thinks the label, "Republican", is a pejorative. I almost don't think the term, "Democrat", is a pejorative either. I actually try to find anyone in either camp who comprehends the value of freedom and the reality of where many of our troubles originate.

Looks like we'll get another McCain out of this--someone with little appeal and no chance. Our country is being crippled in many ways. That much I agree with, as far as what was said. I tend to think the favored candidates would no more get us out of bad international entanglements, and free up our own energy sources, and mind their own business than Obama. And he's done no better than Bush on matters of too much power at the top, abuse of individual rights, and entangling our military while kicking them around if they do their job. I'd never want to be a soldier under such commanders.

Maybe I'll have to run again. It will be fun when they dig up things from my past and expect me to care. Yes, that was a monkey I took to the prom--one of the best nights of my life. Well, that night with the chicken was quite memorable as well.

OK. It was dumb to think I should check it out and be informed, but I can't form my opinions according to who is most lampooned, and who is most favored by Colbert or John Stewart. They are clueless elitists who know on which side their bread is buttered. Yes, I believe they are not courageously bucking the Man's views in hopes of promoting a better America. They are market driven, and without clear cut moral integrity. This means they do what makes themselves popular with the audience and the brass. You may think they are the brass, but I fear the thing is deeper than that.

In any case, the debate would have been better run had Colbert and Stewart been asking the questions. They could not have done anyone less justice than the goof balls who ran the show.