“If you’re explaining, you’re losing”

Rob Belgeri at “Social Media Platform Migration.” Facebook.

The last presidential debate I watched was between Bush I and Dukakis. Bush’s unctuousness and lies flattened Dukakis’s policy wonk lack of dynamism. I tapped out after 5-10 minutes.

These are not debates. They are junior high gotchya sessions. The one who plays by Marquise of Queensbury rules (think, rule-compliant) is the loser. The one with intentions and proposed policies based on complex situations and circumstances is the loser because the Great Genocidalist of Central America, Reagan, said it in his memoirs:

“If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

That makes the debates exercises in bumper-sticker oversimplification and just plain lying horsesh*t.

If you accept my thesis here, what is the value of such debates?

Can you remember one in which the Republican didn’t use it as a platform for mendacity and f*ckery? (Think, Romney in 2012.)

If debates’ value is questionable, that conjecture lies in whether they are predictive of success on the job, should one of them rise to it (or stay in it). They most assuredly are not.

Biden’s difficulties on 6/27 were not predictive of success on the job, which he has already proved. He’s got able back-up if, by some long shot, he has to 25A himself. His failure on 6/27, even without the cold and the exhaustion, was foreordained by the RW-lite network that wasn’t running a debate at all, as well as the Gish Gallop pile of orange shit and lies Biden was undebating.