Town Hall Forum Recap: How To Hold In A Fart On National TV

So after 2 Presidential debates and 1 VP debate what have we learned? Absolutely nothing other than the partisan divide grows larger every day and Punditry World only likes the moderators when they work in their favor.


As Media outlets restarted their debate def-com countdown clocks on Tuesday morning, the parade of partisan wonks lined the sidewalks of Hofstra University, drank their kool-aid and counted the timing of tingly spasms in Chris Matthews’ leg.

I, however, was more worried about which Presidential debate drinking game to follow for the night and what insightful comedic commentary would ensue on my Facebook & Twitter pages.

One of the biggest questions for the night on Social Media wasn’t if O’Barry would show up or of Willard raided Barry Manilow’s closet, but where the hell did these 80 “Undecided” voters come from and did they take the “pinky swear of death” to verify such?

Have no fear because since 1992 the Commission for Presidential Debate has contracted the Gallup Organization to survey and use Jedi mind tricks to probe prospective undecided individuals of their political bias to sit in a stuffy auditorium and act as if they are holding in a fart while attending Sunday Mass.

So for 90 grueling nauseating minutes of interruptions, stare down contests, zingers, laughs and political mythology, we still received no answers and felt pity for those 80 “undecided” souls.

Yes, both candidates bickered about the other’s IKEA instructional plans on how to fix our economy using their MacGyver survival booklet.

In the previous Presidential debate, Willard talked about his “12 million” jobs plan that somehow became discounted during the VP debate by running mate Paul Ryan to “7 million” jobs, yet returned to the original “12 million” for this Presidential debate. Did you get all that, because Punditry World missed it.

So how does the plan roller coaster, well it seems Ryan’s statement is correct and here’s how: Willard’s numeric wizardry involves numbers provided by economists.

Economists projected future jobs forecast tells us that 3 million jobs will be added over the next 4 years with today’s current economic climate and that 2 million jobs will return to the manufacturing sector thanks to the Chinese Intellectual Property lawsuit.

Willard’s plan actually calls for 7 million jobs created, not the 12 million he’s been fibbing about. Yet, like most politicians, simple math only adds up to what they want us to believe, however, my 1st grader can tell Willard that 3+2+7= 12 (million).

But that’s just math, Punditry World and constituents don’t care how the number comes about, they only like a solid even number.

Have no fear, because O’Barry’s jobs creation plan follows Willard’s, but he’s only looks at the 5 million over 4 years, relying heavily on the return of manufacturing from China. Tada!

The large misconception that Punditry World and the lemmings care for talking about was over the term “Terror” and the Benghazi consulate attack.

We’ve seen the replay from Fox to MSNBC to the Daily Show, everyone has interpreted what really transpired between Crowley, Willard, and O’Barry in retrospect to what was said, how it was said, and when it was said by the President in the Rose Garden concerning the Benghazi consulate attack.

O’Barry stated that “the day after the attack, I stood in the Rose garden, and I told the American people, the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror.”

That is factually true, so point to O’Barry, but Willard wouldn’t let him off the hook and kept pressing that it took O’Barry 14 days to announce the Benghazi consulate attack as terrorism.

What everyone should be focusing on is when Willard kept pressing and O’Barry called for Crowley to “get the script.”

Per the transcripts, Crowley stated, “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

This is what many have missed. Crowley actually backed up both O’Barry and Willard in her answer.

The other question is how did Crowley produce one upon request?

This all leads into what a sham this Town Hall forum actually was, from Gallup to Crowley to the staged antics and everyone screaming on social Networks as to who actually won the debate.

My final count for the Presidential Debate drinking game was:
Willard- 18 bottles
O'Barry- 15 bottles

Good thing I recycle.

In the end, it’s another draw between campaigns with Willard having one decided victory and the sigh we heard at the end of this shameful forum was from the so-called “undecided” voters unclenching their butt cheeks in relief.

However, the lemmings will believe their guy won hands down beause their favorite Punditry World talker said so.

That’s it, slap the tap on some frosty cold Oban Bay Kilt Lifter and pass the Animal Crackers. Cheers!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/politics/transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate-in-hempstead-ny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1018/Presidential-debate-101-When-did-Obama-label-Libya-attack-terror
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-town-hall-debate-how-voters-were-selected-2012-10
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/secret-debate-rules-obama-and-romney-agreed/57974/
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-civ-1036.html