Media Rants: A Truth Serum Debate

The piece below will appear in the October edition of The Scene. I wrote it about a week before last Friday's first debate between Obama and McCain. After watching that debate, I'm thinking that forcing the candidates to swallow some truth serum (the theme of the media rant) maybe isn't that bad of an idea.--TP

A Truth Serum Debate

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

By the time you read this, Barack Obama and John McCain will have completed their first debate. Since God (i.e. the Commission on Presidential Debates) decreed no third party candidate participation, expect few surprises.

For mainstream media, the debates represent exercises not in dissecting differences in policy positions, but in praying that a participant says something so bizarre, ignorant, and/or stupid that two weeks of media time can be spent begging for clarification or apologies. Consequently, candidates play it safe, hope their opponent stumbles, and prepare a clever quip for the highlight reel.

Imagine if the candidates could be compelled to speak the truth? Suppose McCain and Obama swallowed truth serum before a debate. They get asked about the financial crisis and Iraq.

Moderator: Senator McCain, isn’t it true that your closest economic advisor played a key role in creating the conditions leading to Wall Street’s financial train wreck?

McCain: Yes. In fact, when Treasury Secretary Paulson said “This is a humbling, humbling time for the United States of America,” my first thought was that it's actually a humbling time for my friend and chief economic counselor Phil Gramm. While a US Senator from Texas, Phil got the Senate to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealing prohibitions on banks being involved in the insurance and investments businesses.

Moderator: But Senator Obama, didn’t Democratic President Bill Clinton sign that bill?

Obama: Yes that’s true.

McCain: Excuse me, I finally start to tell the truth and you interrupt me?

Moderator: Sorry, continue!

McCain: Phil was the driving force behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the major deregulation maneuver that led to Enron and the current travesties. Bankers never had a better friend than Phil Gramm.

Moderator: Senator Obama, you’re not exactly being advised by angels either, right?

Obama: True. I don’t care for the Clintons, but two of Bill’s former Treasury Secretaries, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers, enjoy my full confidence. They eagerly supported the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. They liked to call it the “Financial Services Modernization Act,” in part to make sure the Republicans didn’t get full credit. They retain credibility in the finance sector, which is one of the reasons I’ve raised more money than Senator McCain from the major Wall St. houses.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Rubin and Summers joined President Clinton in enthusiastic support of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That legislation allowed a few media giants to control vast markets and avoid public accountability.

Moderator: Hardly sounds like a “change we can believe in” team. Thank goodness you guys drank the truth serum. Let’s move to Iraq. Senator Obama, do you honestly believe that the surge has, as you said, “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams?”

Obama: No, that statement was me engaging in the “okey doke” bamboozling I’ve accused my opponents of. Look, the truth is that the establishment press crucifies anti-war candidates, so I’ve had to “update” my views on Iraq to stay on their good side. Does that represent a sell-out of the anti-war Democratic base that got me the nomination? Sure, but realistically where else can those voters go? With all due respect to John, he’s never going to be the peacenik candidate.

Moderator: Senator McCain, what about that surge?

McCain: First, let me say that I haven’t felt this liberated since leaving the Hanoi Hilton. The truth serum seems to be interacting with the six or so other medications I’m on so that I feel like a genuine straight talk express.

So here’s some straight talk on the surge. The reason we’ve seen a reduction in violence in Iraq has nothing to do with sending additional troops there. I think my nemeses over at the New York Times actually have this one right. They say: “Although the ‘surge’ is often described as the turning point that led to lower violence, a number of American officers contend the Awakening that began well before the surge in 2006 in Anbar Province and continued in Baghdad last year was the most significant reason for the decline. In some places, American casualties plunged within weeks of the Sunnis joining with American forces.”

We pay members of the Awakening movement about $300 per month not to shoot at us. To borrow a term from the green movement, paying off the Iraqi resistance is not “sustainable.” Ultimately we will have to admit that the Iraqis do not want us there, we cannot afford to be there, and our presence there is the chief reason for the violence in the country. But tomorrow I’ll forget I ever said that, so if I get elected expect more violence. Maybe even bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Moderator: We’ve got one minute of truth left. I understand you both want to read a joint statement?

Obama and McCain: We each want to be president, but we also believe that Americans should vote their conscience. We urge citizens to take closer looks at the candidacies of Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr. In fact if you threaten to vote for them, you’ll show us that you have an election exit strategy and you will force us to address the real needs of Americans. That’s the truth.