They took a pile of dog shit,
And they mushed it in a mound,
Till it stood about two inches tall,
Nine inches wide, and round,
They let it sit a while,
Till it dried a little bit,
And it looked a bit like pastry
(Though it through and through was shit)
Then they covered it with frosting
So it seemed a proper cake—
If you hadn’t paid attention,
And you didn’t know it’s fake—
Then they took the pile of dog shit
And they put it on display
And they said “it looks delicious—
Won’t you try a bite today?”
Though the frosting looks delicious
I will never take a bite
I have seen the cake’s construction
And it simply isn’t right
They may tweak the presentation
(They will tweak and never quit)…
Dress it up the way you want to,
What you’re selling, though… is shit.
I’ve seen entirely too many ads and articles alerting me to the new strategies that might be tried in the upcoming GOP debate.
I do not care. And neither should you.
This is not closed-minded. This is open-eyed. If you know someone for decades, know them to be of a particular character, and then see them act in a different way for a day or two, you would be a fool to “be open-minded” and assume they have changed. Is it possible? Certainly. Is it possible they are lying? Or pandering? Or reading the weathervane? All are possible. Thing is, being open-minded means following the evidence. And there is plenty of evidence available already.
And yes, the same holds true for anyone, in any party. I’ve just heard too much about repositioning within the GOP… and I cannot imagine what *anyone* could say at this point to make up for what they have said up to this point.
Well done, DC! I won’t be watching either, but for a different reason: at my age I can’t afford to lose any more cranial neurons.
I’m so glad I do not have a TeeVee. Anyway, these panels of idiots ranting are not anything remotely resembling proper debates, so why bother? Also, debating is won on style, not substance (evidence), so why, as a skeptic, would I watch?
Die Anyway says
I watched a bit of one, most of another one, just to see how the candidates would present themselves. They actually got through without saying anything too radical (while I was watching). For some of them, the only way I knew about their real ideas and attitudes was from reading Ed Brayton’s Dispatches. Any voter trying to choose a candidate to support based on these debates is missing a whole lot of the picture.
I didn’t watch this most recent one… as D.C. says, I know their character by now and confirming it further is just a waste of time. Based on the news reports, I guess this one got a little spicier.
Great rhyme Digital Cuttlefish – excellent and evocative.
So ..who did you think won? ;-)
Incidentally, I think this analysis of that “debate” by Stonekettle Station’ blogger Jim Wright :
is spot on and demolishes it brilliantly and puts forward a vastly superior alternative – scarp the “debates” and make them face the hardest job interview of their lives.
^ Er, make that ‘scrap’ not scarp although holding the Republicans to a real literal cliffhanger on some escarpment then getting to cut each loser loose also has a certain mordant appeal to it!