Debate Night With Cletus

Cletus watching the debate – Photo: L. Weikel

Ugh. I watched the debate tonight. I thought it was pretty awful. The moderators seemed to lose control from the very beginning; the candidates were petty and rude, interrupting each other and continuing to speak even though someone else clearly had the floor; and it just seemed as though the questions were barely probative of anything that really matters. Debate night with Cletus was a tremendous disappointment.

It was frustrating.

Booing

Yes, I realize this is probably a statement that completely dates me, but quite honestly, if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all. And no, I’m not talking about the candidates. I’m speaking of the audience members, who obviously booed Bernie Sanders repeatedly.

I don’t mind the supposedly spontaneous cheering for Mike Bloomberg, although yes, I’m cynical about its origin. But the booing was inappropriate, distracting, and staged.

Cynical? Me?

I find it astonishing that the pundits were quick to criticize Bernie Sanders for appearing “a little off” this evening. And their smug observation that perhaps he wasn’t used to being booed was pretty patronizing.

No one likes to be booed, I’m guessing. But isn’t it interesting that none of these pundits criticizing Bernie Sanders’s performance this evening thought it relevant to mention that the lowest ticket price to get into the audience of this debate was $1,750? And that some paid up to $3,200?

I’m sure that the booing of answers provided by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren was purely coincidental to the significant financial means it took to attend tonight’s debate in person.

Money Talks

Let’s face it. We’re seeing it everywhere in our society, but no more so than in our politics. At this stage of our country’s evolution, money talks. Which means we, the people, are faced with a choice. Do we reward this craven ability of those with unlimited wealth to simply buy our attention (and our votes) by running billions of dollars’ worth of ads that create an ideal image of a candidate?

Or do we take the side of the candidates that appears before us, warts and all? One advocating the same position they have for 40 years, and another being ignored as a brazen woman who actually cares enough about the Democratic party to go after the one with unlimited funds and expose him for being far different than what he’s advertising us now?

Seems to me, that’s the candidate that cares more about adhering to fundamental ideals than even winning herself. Seems to me that might be the one I would trust most to get the job done and believe that she really will fight for regular people. Seems to me that might be the candidate who would put our needs before her own.

What a concept.

Obvious Mainstream Prejudices

I’m finding the mainstream prejudices that favor the status quo utterly remarkable. The knives sure do come out when the power brokers of the party and the pundits of the chattering class realize that they may not actually have their finger on the pulse of the people of this nation.

People want change, radical change. That couldn’t be more obvious. But the media pandered to the lowest common denominator tonight. The setting of the debate looked 100% like a game show. In fact, the candidates were actually referred to as contestants – and one of the moderators described them as vying for the role of president.

The questions that were asked were simplistic and mainly aimed at getting the candidates to throw some chairs at each other. God forbid we address the Coronavirus and the gutting of the CDC, or the corruption of the Judiciary, or the purge list of the president.

My how we have dumbed down this process.

I will allow Cletus to express my dissatisfaction with tonight’s debate: