The 1st Presidential Debate - Poor Polemics

"Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest."

Dear friends,

To me, the first of the 2012 presidential debates shows how anti-intellectual most Americans - especially the opinion-making, mainstream media journalists - are. Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves, as it has always, that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest.

I mean, the event had been billed as a debate. Yet, the discipline of polemics was not a part of the agenda. Huh? For example, when Romney mentioned that he would clip the wings of  Sesame Street's Big Bird, President Obama should have asked him what was it that the former governor didn't like about the famous yellow children's icon. It's a simple question! Moreover, such inquiry would have led the thoughtless Romney to babble, bumble, and stumble all over both the stage and the airwaves. Did someone say "polemics"?

The commentator was more than generous about letting each candidate get his points across. Consequently, a competent polemicist would have used that opportunity to make Romney show us who he really is and that in which he really believes. Obama's far superior intellect would have shined. Instead, The president allowed a complete intellectually-challenged lightweight make it seem as if he deserved to be part of the discourse.

When one is in a fight, whether verbally or physically, s/he must have techniques in his or her arsenal, at hand, that will allow him or her to maintain confidence. Losing confidence during a fight can lead to one's defeat. As my old boxing trainer, Val Colbert, taught me, and I still teach, "If you're gonna win a fight, you have to have a cup of confidence to let the other guy know that you gonna win the fight."

In boxing, we have a punch that is called a "jab-to-the-belly". The jab-to-the-belly is what I call the only free pinch in boxing. In other words, all head punches that a fighter throws have a cost, in terms of consequence, be they straight punches like either jabs or "crosses", or round punches like uppercuts and hooks. So I call the jab-to-the-belly, the only "free" punch in boxing, because even if it doesn't land, when thrown properly, there will be no consequence. Therefore, one can maintain his or her confidence by throwing a punch/attacking, without having to worry about being attacked back.

Finally, in the next debate, President Obama should use genuine tactics of polemics, as well as fighting. and go back and keep focus on Romney's Big Bird insult. Again, the whole thing is a personality contest. I hope that next time, the president has a jab-to-the-belly in his arsenal. Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus