Op-Ed
QUICK TAKES ’08: The candidates, the drinking games and last week’s debate
September 29, 2008 - 12:00amAnalysis of the Presidential Drinking Game — er, Debate
I received an email the other day that stated the following:
“If you had purchased $1,000 of Delta Air Lines stock one year ago, you would have $49 left. With Fannie Mae, you would have $2.50 left of the original $1,000.
With AIG, you would have less than $15 left.
But, if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago, drunk all of the beer, then turned in the cans for aluminum recycling, you would have $214 cash.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.”
Having decided to follow this advice, I got over my initial disappointment at Bailey Hall’s debate-viewing party being sold out by proposing a Presidential Drinking Game to my friends. I thought (probably correctly) that it would be the only way I could stomach watching the first of the season’s empty political exchanges — the Barack and McCain Beirut tourney, if you will.
We started out a little slow: the rule was to drink a whole bottle of tequila if McCain didn’t show up, and needless to say some were disappointed when he appeared in his American-flag-esque ensemble. Some of the original rules proposed were big hits: I tyrannically shouted “DRINK!” at the reference of the economic “crisis” (eight times), a “when I’m President” statement (five times), and a mentioning of an ordinary American (twice, in a row, each candidate trying to out-plebian the other).
We added some rules as we went along. Pretty soon, we were drinking at “Main Street,” “pork barrel,” and “bipartisan.” Some added their own rules based on the arbitrary (and hilarious at the time) graphs on the bottom of the screen marking “audience reaction:” Stefan, for example, drank when the green line showing “Independent” audience members got to the bottom of the screen. My analysis of this “audience reaction” gadget was that it was a brilliant tool to engage potheads in the civic process. I personally drank when McCain made a hilarious joke about earmarking enabling a 3 million dollar study of bears in Montana. Wait … that wasn’t a joke?? Uh-oh … here comes the vomit.
All I can say is that I probably wouldn’t be here today if we had added “fundamental,” “Afghanistan,” or every-time-McCain-looks-like-he-is-going-to-die to the list of drinking rules. Any creative rules for this Thursday’s veep smackdown, send me an e-mail. Maybe I’ll invite you to the party too. Hell, if our country is heading down the same road as in 1929, at least Cornell will have a speakeasy up on Elmwood Street.
— Ariela Rutkin-Becker ’09
Don’t Believe the Hype
Frankly, the hype for this debate was a lot to do about nothing. I didn’t think it was exciting, riveting, or entertaining.
I do think, however, that McCain won. All we hear is how Obama is the dynamic speaker filled with charisma that will upstage McCain going head to head.
I didn’t see that. I saw a flat-footed Obama trying to refute McCain’s continuous arguments and accusations. McCain held his own and I finally started to get excited about supporting him.
One of the best counterarguments McCain had to Obama was with regards to the War in Iraq. Obama continued to dwell on our reasons for going in and McCain’s support for the war. The more important thing, I think, and McCain certainly pointed this out, is that “It’s not whether or not we shave gone in or not. It’s about when and how we leave.”
That is the forward thinking we need in a leader.
McCain also effectively pointed out the earmarks and pork-barrel spending that Obama has supported in his short tenure in the United States Senate. “A million dollars a day” that Obama has been there is an effective argument. (I’m not sure whether or not it was to poke fun of his overall lack of experience in the Senate, or his ridiculous support of excessive spending, but I liked it).
I’m very much looking forward to Biden v. Palin. Their respective home states represent six electoral votes — total.
— C.J. Slicklen ’09
No Clear Victor
It is no secret that politicians criticize each other, seemingly with enjoyment. The presidential debates, however, are some of the rare festivities in which the American people actually get to witness such sparring face to face. Before the opening bell this past Friday, the controversy had already begun. Amidst a troubling time for our economy, as the federal government scrambled to complete a $700 billion bail-out plan, Senator McCain’s presence at the debate was in doubt. However, the so called “Maverick” was in attendance, absent the red and white flagged shorts, to debate with Senator Obama. When all was said and done, however, the event was far from resembling Ali vs. Frazier. Nevertheless, there were some noteworthy moments:
1) Senator McCain made it loud and clear “Senator Obama just does not understand,” at least in his opinion. The question is whether potential voters agree?
2) Senator Obama, surprising many, claimed “Senator McCain is absolutely right” on a number of topics. However, it would be foolish to overlook the numerous times Senator Obama linked Senator McCain to the policies of President Bush. The question remains, will McCain simply bring us another set of the same four years?
3) Senator McCain stumbled over, and essentially butchered, the name of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We know that Senator Obama is the eloquent orator of the bunch, but one still assumes that someone running for president would be able to pronounce the name of international leaders, especially when he claims foreign policy as his forte.
4) Senator Obama appeared more serious and straightforward than usual, appearances many experts say will be vital to his potential success. However, he still did manage to emit a handsome chuckle, in response to a McCain joke labeling him as an extreme liberal. The overall tone of the debate featured little laughter; then again, it is hard to laugh about America’s failed policies.
In conclusion, the simple fact that the “debate will go on” was reassuring to some. The victor, however, is anything but clear-cut. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama engaged in some apparent role reversals. As the polls start surfacing, it will be interesting to see how voters react. Those expecting fireworks, there is still next time. This Thursday, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden will be center stage, with a high likelihood of hitting below the belt.
— Sean Werbelow ’11
Round One: Obama, in the Blue Shorts
After Friday’s presidential debate two things are abundantly clear: Obama has decided there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy, and McCain has decided he doesn’t care a whole lot about his campaign.
Obama kicked off the debate addressing the economic crisis by articulating very clearly his resolution to fight for the interests of the middleclass American rather than the CEO while simultaneously laying the guilt for the crisis on McCain’s shoulders.
“We have to recognize,” Obama explained, “that this is the final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by John McCain.”
Obama’s no-punches-pulled strategy exemplified the kind of assertiveness some critics feared he lacks.
McCain, on the other hand, sounded for most of the debate as if he was really only trying to disassociate himself from his old pal George W. Bush. “We Republicans came to power to change government and government changed us.” Even the Republicans want to wash their hands of their president’s failures.
Aside from making sure no one mistook him for Bush, McCain just kind of used the podium as a crutch and looked as if he might keel over from boredom.
The only times McCain was animated was when he smirked or laughed awkwardly while being called on his lies about Obama’s political positions. Apparently McCain was as taken off guard by Obama’s assertiveness as we were.
The climax of the debate (or perhaps the anti-climax) was when McCain decided it was time again to remind us how long he’s been a politician. “I don’t need any on-the-job training,” McCain explained. “I’m ready to go at it right now!”
McCain’s experience (a.k.a. his age) is about all that his arthritic hands have left to hold on to. And that isn’t much when he’s fumbling the names of the president of Iran and the leader of Pakistan while swearing he is an expert in international relations.
McCain made a presidential debate look like pulling teeth (dentures?) and scowled incessantly throughout the debate as if to say, “You dragged me away from Washington for this?”
The question is: If McCain doesn’t want to joust with Obama, does he really want the crown? Deep down, would McCain rather just call it all off and buy a retirement condo in Florida?
From McCain’s pledge to cancel his campaign to his utter lack of interest in the presidential debate, it is clear he isn’t taking his job very seriously.
And the job he’s applying for is the most serious one on the planet.
— Cody Gault ’11
Pricing?
If you bought $1000 of Delta (DAL) on October 1st, 2007 - you would have $408.40 today.
If you bought $1000 of Fannie Mae (FNM) on October 1st, 2007 - you would have $25.65 today.
If you bought $1000 of AIG (AIG) on October 1st, 2007 - you would have $36.95 today.
If you bought $1000 of beer, at today's Wegmans price of $16.99 (plus deposit) you could afford just over 54 cases of 30 cans of Bud (basically undrinkable - but I digress). This would give you 720 cans - or $36 in return for the cans.
Looks like Delta was by far the best investment, then AIG, followed closely by Bud.
However, if you had invested in Anheuser-Busch, you would have walked away with $1270.30, up 27% for the year.