Whereas Dubya always sounds like he’s faking his way through a report on a book he didn’t read.

If there are more substantive questions, and a more dignified and formal debate ground rules, then the audience will not rely so much on the corrupt flunkies.

One of the corrupt functions of the current debate system is to provide promo feed for the assinine commentary afterwards by vicious celebrity know-nothings. The debates are designed to maximize corporate publicity and ad revenue.

In a real debate, with real substantive issues discussed, the ignorant commenters won’t have much to add. I think there will be couple of issues in every debate where voters will look at the media celebs and say ‘that goof doesn’t know anything, I know more than he does.’

However, I still want an organized effort to publicly strip the corporate media of the power to dominate the production of national debates.

A big public noise, with a documented indictment of the corporate media performance will publicly disgrace and humiliate them, or, if not, will help discredi them with the public. They simply cannot respond effectively to a competently done critique of their grotesquely bad record.

And we need an alternative platform for debate. That would produce a better system. It would also be a permanent stain on the coporate media’s record.

They need to be very seriously damaged. Their public reputation must be mangled and maimed.

Perhaps that’s an overreaction to Bush, who can do none of those things. He can barely put a noun in front of the right verb, which is an indication of how little he thinks and how much he intuits based on limited data. That such limitations can be disastrous is painfully clear. Among other things, it leads Mr. Bush to lie about things great and small, especially about that micro-earpiece, like an early Babel fish, that allows him to be at least semi-literate.