Say It Ain't So, Joe

It is a less than commensurate and clearly the antithesis of dignity to go on lauding a presidential (vice) candidate who has utter disrespect and contempt for our government, political system, and the citizens of this nation – not to mention intellectual depth. Is it an act of patriotism or condescension to offer congeniality as a proxy for substance? I am soon to be convinced (and I hope I won't be) that in this massively cosmologized pop culture we may prefer to be obfuscated rather than substantiated. Sarah Palin deftly played for us the perfect characterization of Tina Fey. Perhaps this is the reason that even in entertainment we have replaced artistic depth with a pandering amusement. This may fly in a world where drama is fiction, comedy is medicine and war is an action flick. In this America, however, the real drama is a war which has no end in sight costing money with no deference to fiscal responsibility, a health care system which is failing to reach those who need it most, and an economy that has turned up the volume on depression and so much so that laughing is perhaps the only way we can assuage or recess our pain and trepidation. Milli-Vanilli convinced us they were legit, won a Grammy and we were duped. Style may work on stage for a while but somewhere along the way, it takes skill to build a lasting relic rather than an embarrassing spectacle.

The presidential debate series is intended to distinguish, for those of us who can't actually have a face to face dialog with them, who among the candidates actually have a plausible and comprehensive insight as to where we are, how we got here and what might be the most efficient way to optimize our ability and move us into a better and more efficient posture. Are the questions designed to be answered at all? At this rate, inky, blinky, and nod can be president. Have we actually come to the point when we hope that a “wink” is all we need to fix the economy? “Say it ain't so, JOE.” Seriously, Joe Sixpack, and Joe Shmo speak up. Joe Biden has already. It's likely that being so crafty at dodging an issue in debate may be sufficient reason to suspect that one may dodge issues at large– a real one – like strong fundamentals of our economy, or a senseless war turned poorly prosecuted war. Are we amazed or amused? Palin pontifficates the Bush doctrine as a past policy, But is it really an offering of the past or the machinations of the present posturing to be the trend of the future in a McCain/Palin ticket? If we accept this charismatically seductive petting from those who duck and dodge, we are destined to make America and its politic a dangerously formidable cinematic option.

Could we not have just had a debate where Palin realized 90 minutes with Gwyn Iffil was not intended to be be synonymous with “Survivor”. The difference? The Vice-Presidential Debate is reality and Survivor is a reality show. No one is being voted off an island (however tempting the thought), someone is being voted into the office of President. Now, to be fair – this play of showmanship and charisma may 'shore up' support among those who want to know that someone average, with whom we might have a beer, is in office running things. Bush was Joe-sixpack. It's not that we've been there and done that. We ARE there and we ARE doing that. However, it will not shore up the support which serves as a sufficient embankment to build a legitimately stabilized infrastructure which can and will fortify us as a credible nation both domestic and abroad.