How to Say Nothing in 90 Minutes

For those of you unaware (and yes, I'm certain there are some out there), last night, major networks aired the presidential debates starring Mitt "Shut up, Jim, I'm talking" Romney, and Barack "So what's your plan, Mitt" Obama. According to social media and news outlets (and let's face it, they're pretty much the same thing), Mitt won.

If you ask NBC, Obama could have done better. 

If you ask FOX, Mitt descended from Mount Olympus, tarred and feathered the president, and made a mockery of his impudent heresy while his armor caught the last of the sun's rays, and highlighted the blood on the sword he used to vanquish the evil sorcerer.

Granted, Romney was absolutely more animated than the current leader of the free world. Obviously, the GOP's animatronics team was on their A-game. Amongst all the whirring of machinery, cranking handles, and pulling strings to make him blink, however, they forgot to invest in one crucial area: facts. You know, those pesky little checkable things that independently verify that what you're saying is true. The problem with Romney's robotics team is that even though they were almost musical in their execution of finely choreographed evasion, hand gestures, and snide smirks, they forgot to include a substantive script. 

Oops.

See, it doesn't matter how hard and loud you say something, folks. Volume does not inject the sounds coming from your mouth with veracity. I know this firsthand, ladies and germs. My wife uses "I said it louder" to declare victory when we play Jeopardy all the time. She wins, of course, because she's my wife. Romney isn't, however, applying for the position of Wife of The United States. He's running for president. A position for which you have to reapply after four years. Many pundits are declaring the debate won decisively by Romney, citing his confidence. When you step back and examine the fact that what he did was evade, and basically spit in Jim Lehrer's cold, dead, beady eyes, what you'll see is that all Romney did was avoid saying anything specific while bullying the moderator. 

Obama was reserved, almost subdued. Am I the only one thinking these could be the actions of a man who's thinking? Yes, he was at a debate, but he's also the current president with a great many responsibilities. He was also celebrating his 20th wedding anniversary. Speaking out of an emotional response as opposed to a well-thought out logical one is not something to be lauded. Does he need a little fire under his ass? Certainly.

 Let's consider something for a moment, though:

 If an injured bird is flapping around making a spectacle of himself while squawking loudly, and a cat is poised in the underbrush quietly waiting to strike, do you declare the bird the winner?

 Let's not forget that this is the first of three presidential debates. I think before we declare a winner, we ought to tune in on the 16th and the 22nd as well (and let's not forget the VP debates on the 11th, which are sure to provide us some levity). 

It should also be noted that if the state you govern is number one in education now, and was number one in education before you took office, that doesn't mean you got it there. What that means is that you inherited a good thing, and managed to not completely fuck it sideways (See the Clinton era surplus turning into the Bush era deficit for contrast). That's your job, sir; to not fuck things up.

You would do well to listen to the actual words used in the debate, rather than the volume with which they were forced from the candidates' pieholes. There were several instances where Obama pointedly asked Romney what his plan was, and for a moment afterward, the only thing you could hear is Jim Lehrer blinking.