The Two (Pseudo)-Live Crew

Tweet

From the sunny campus that helped make Luther Campbell a 'hood-hold' name, and ironically, an accidental first amendment cause celebre comes the vaguely democratic, sort-of open, kind-of exchange of free ideas known as the first Presidential "debate" tomorrow night from the University of Miami.

If this "debate" is what you've been waiting for to make up your mind, to hear in-depth thoughts, ideas and beliefs on a wide-range of issues, to get a sense of what direction each candidate plans on taking the country, just make sure you pay close attention...for 30 whole seconds at a time. That's how long the "extended discussion" of the "debate" between George W. Bush and John Kerry allows. That's all right though, because the candidates will be going toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball, hammering out the differences between their platforms...excepting of course that addressing one another is a violation of the 32-page contract that established the rules of said "debate."

Let's be honest: spontaneity, creativity and thinking-on-ones-feet are bad for business and bad for the country. Sticking to a predetermined message is how it should be, because rarely does the President of the United States ever face unscripted events with world leaders who aren't playing by the rules in the 32-page contract. (Osama bin Laden, being the exception of course, the lanky Talibander always stands behind a lectern that's much taller than 50 inches). Like unruly toddlers, W. and Kerry need clearly defined boundaries, lest one of them fall off their handlers, skin their knees, and start bawling like Edward Muskie.

Obviously, the "debates" need a format and a moderator, otherwise chaos would rule, and it might start resembling the Miami Hurricanes locker room during the Jimmy Johnson era with a lot of swearing, testosterone, and nudity (which actually could get people to pay more attention). The "debates" have become rehearsed, artificial, and bland ever since the League of Women Voters bowed out in 1988 over the infiltration of spinsters, on-message lackies, PR flacks, and kid-glove handlers.

The bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates is the type of mushy, mealy-mouthed, politically correct organization that is ruining the election process for the citizenry in the name of not making their guy look sweaty a la Nixon. (And yes, like in Francis Coppola's wine cellar, the room temperature is set in stone). The scripting of the most important discussion of our time is a national embarrassment.

No matter how dumbed-down and phony the "debate" gets, they are still of the utmost importance because they at least bring Bush and Kerry into the same room and ask them to explain what makes them different. As business owners, don't you want to hear an honest exchange about issues that pertain to your world...you know, the same issues that pertain to everyone? The candidates constantly reference private ownership while rarely linking it to a plan. Wouldn't a bit more back-and-forth over factual specifics be a good thing? Unfortunately, the format dictates that Bush and Kerry will keep repeating their stump speeches over and over even at the "debate," and that's why there's little chance of head-to-head combat over substantative issues.

So for now, to liven it up, I encourage you to write your representatives in the House and Senate, or maybe just turn the tedium of the "debate" into a drinking game. Break out a case of suds and gather around the television with your wife, partner, best friend, mother, father, mailman and/or random drunkard. Draw either Bush or Kerry out of a hat. Anytime your guy says: "liberty," "freedom," "entrepreneur," "American people," "jobs," or "strength" without tying it to a particular policy plan, take a swig. It's going to make for a long night, but on the upside, you may not recall much from the ersatz sham known as the first Presidential "debate."

Oh, and if your guy explains a solution for Iraq in 30 seconds...break out the beer bong. I think we have a winner.