…or debate?
It’s become a US tradition during their election campaign…this “debate” between presidential candidates. As far back as Abraham Lincoln’s election of 1858, he had a famous debate with his Democratic rival Senator Stephen Douglas. But that was when a debate meant an exchange of views on issues.
It all changed a century later when JFK took on Republican Richard Nixon in 1960 on TV. In the dawning of the age of advertising and “packaging”, “image” pipped “substance”. After Nixon’s close loss to Kennedy, pundits put it down to his “5 o’clock shadow” on his jowls versus the debonair and young Bostonian’s clean-cut good looks. And since then, the “debate” has just careened further into the cesspool of bad taste.
Your Eyewitness is tempted to say it can’t possibly get worse than the first outing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton…that’s how bad it was. But knowing the thinking behind the candidates’ performances on stage, he’s sure they’ll find ways to plunge even further into slime. After all, absolutely no one watching the “debate” is doing so to find out the candidates’ stands on issues – on which they can be supported. No. This was pure theatre – akin to the reality shows that have transfixed America and which, in fact, gave Trump a platform for the run for the presidency.
So when you, Dear Reader, ask, “Who won?” remember the contest was just about what image each candidate wanted to “project” for him/herself and foist on the opponent. Hillary Clinton’s challenge is she’s probably the most disliked politician in America. She just comes across as so ambitious, she’ll walk over her mother to gain political leverage. So did she do anything to seem “warmer” during the “debate”.
Not really. Her snappy factoids just proved to viewers she was so determined to win at any cost, she took time off from the campaign to “prep” herself by cramming a welter of “facts”. Cold!! And it just reinforced her “winning at all cost” reputation. Her insistence on appearing “presidential” also didn’t do much for her…because once again it made her not connect to the average Jane and Joe out in the streets.
Trump? Well, there were some who wondered whether he’d present his recent “kinder, gentler” facade or the original pit bull persona that won him the Republican nomination. Guess he decided to go with what worked as he decided to go all out against Clinton. He turned her command of facts around by showing those “facts” weren’t worth squat in the real world where American lost ground – and jobs.
The “debate” convinced no one in the other camp!
…by Rip van Bulkan
After Town Clerk Royston King ran roughshod every which way he could over anyone who stood in his way following the Local Government Elections, folks were beginning to wonder who was his Godfather. Had to be someone with a whole lotta clout – since King became a law into himself answerable to no one. If Louis XIV could say “I am the state”, King acted as if he was absolute ruler of Georgetown!
But finally the man who appointed him to his position and to whom he supposedly reports – Minister of Local Communities Ronald Bulkan woke up from his Rip van Winkle-like sleep and announced that King was out of line. At least with throwing out the vendors from Bourda Market and not giving the time of the day to Deputy Mayor Sherod Duncan. Imagine that!
Now let’s see whether King will change his errant ways. Your Eyewitness advises that you don’t hold your breath, Dear Readers.
King has been sucking eggs too long! And his Godfather pips Bulkan!
…at Demerara Bridge
An irate commuter across the Demerara Harbour Bridge described the arrogant behaviour of a “senior policeman” who insisted he had to be “uber alles”. But why confine the boorishness to Policemen?
It’s exhibited everyday by anyone in “position”.
