« Prev

Slog

Next »

Slog Steel Cage Match! (Or: Now Accepting Applications for a Pre-Debate Debate)

Originally posted yesterday, moved up to today so more people can see it—and, hopefully, apply. Confidential to Original Monique: You vs. your dad could be great. Send in an app!

Plan A was to have surrogates from the local Obama and McCain campaigns duke it out here on Slog next week as a sort of warm-up act for next Friday’s first Presidential debate. But for some reason neither campaign was eager to take me up on the offer.

So on to Plan B, which I think may be far more entertaining. If the professional surrogates don’t want to throw political upper-cuts at each other on Slog, why not put out a call for amateurs?

Therefore, I am now accepting applications from those interested in participating in a Slog Steel Cage Match: Two political maniacs, one an Obama supporter from Washington State, one a McCain supporter from Washington State, both locked in a liveblogging widget for a set amount of time and left to bloody each other up and convincingly prove the idiocy of each other’s positions—with the winner determined by popular vote.

Imagine:

John Bailo vs. Fnarf.
Or perhaps PC vs. violet_dagrinder.
Or YOU vs. your Republican mom.

A duel to the (virtual) political death.

Time and date details later. First, let’s get some self-nominations.

Send me an email with exactly these words, and only these words, in the subject line: Steel Cage Match. In the body of the email, tell me who you support (McCain or Obama) and why I should believe that you know enough about politics to destroy whatever opponent is thrown at you. Special consideration will be given to those people who attach an intimidating-looking mug-shot to their application emails. Application window closes at 5 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 19.

Now…

Who wants in?

Comments (64)

1

plan a ftw

Posted by tiffany | September 18, 2008 2:43 PM
2

Mr. Poe's Jew vs. Issur

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 18, 2008 2:45 PM
3

Good idea. I am ineligible for location reasons, but would love to see Fnarf, obviously. I have to say, if John Bailo is one of the contestants, I will be not be as excited. It would be like aruging with a magic eight ball -- random, illogical things just coming out of his mouth.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 18, 2008 2:46 PM
4

Mr. Poe vs. Lord Basil

Posted by Inner conflict | September 18, 2008 2:49 PM
5

Raindrop vs. flamingbanjo

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 18, 2008 2:53 PM
6

Virtual death match? WTF?!?! If it isn't to the death then what's the point?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 18, 2008 2:54 PM
7

4 people support McCain here and 2 might be sockpuppets.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 18, 2008 2:58 PM
8

I think Bellevue Ave is the only non-lefty here who's not just a nonsense-spouting troll. He gets my vote.

Posted by Levislade | September 18, 2008 2:58 PM
9

-1

Too contrived. Too much overanticipation. FTL. It will be nearly as boring as the Super Bowl.

Now if you could set up circumstances where something like this could happen organically, like if Slog tried to make everyone be themselves instead of nothing but trolling using 14 different sockpuppet identities...

Posted by elenchos | September 18, 2008 2:58 PM
10

@8 And the rub is I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 18, 2008 3:01 PM
11

Of course -- happy to debate on behalf of Obama anytime.

The change you need:
1. down payment on your American dream -- $1000 tax cut and $1000 energy rebate now.
Obama will cut your taxes, McCain will raise them thru continued managemnt of the economy for oil companies, CEOs and lobbyist giveaways.

2. Guarantee of your American Dream: removing power of the Old Boys Network and putting in place the new resolution trust co. my advisers will come up with tomorrow to take all toxic loans out of the market.

3. Let's Build America First -- invest in infrastructure, green jobs and r & d, to compete now and in the future for you and your kids and produce thousands of jobs now.

4. His health plan will cover everyone and lift costs from our companies so they can compete globally; his college aid plan will ensure everyone who studies hard can go to colelge.

Obama: The Change We Need is Restoring the American Dream.

McCain: The Same Old Old Boys Network.

You see, when speaking outside the tent of Obama supporters, it's all pro Obama. I want every possible vote to go for Obama, esp. those we don't yet have, duh.

Unity, y'all--

Posted by PC | September 18, 2008 3:02 PM
12

Yes, there's your problem right there: you're going to end up with Bailo vs. PC, and I don't think the internet can stand up to that kind of abuse.

I'll argue the McCain position. Be warned, every second phrase out my mouth is going to be "socialist motherfuckers" or "pussy you faggots", with an occasional "where are my cocksucking slippers, you fucking bastards? What are you doing in my bedroom? Is there any of that warm milk left?" dropped in.

Posted by Fnarf | September 18, 2008 3:09 PM
13

Also, PC now vs. PC four months ago.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 18, 2008 3:09 PM
14

I don't think PC is a McCain supporter. I haven't seen all of his/her comments, but I have not gotten the impression he/she supports McCain.

Posted by WTF | September 18, 2008 3:09 PM
15

Fnarf, you argue the position, not act like the man.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 18, 2008 3:10 PM
16

@10 - well I'll be!

Posted by Levislade | September 18, 2008 3:14 PM
17

But that's the hidden genius of the idea, Fnarf. Give John Bailo and PC their own special "presidential debate" thread where they can ramble to their hearts' content, thus ridding them from the rest of the Slog for at least a brief period.

Posted by Hernandez | September 18, 2008 3:16 PM
18

anyone who understands the issues should be able to argue both sides. it might be fun to argue for mccain... but i'm not sure i have a deep enough knowledge of enough of the issues to offer any sort of new insight.

Posted by infrequent | September 18, 2008 3:17 PM
19

The problem is that no one, including McCain, knows what McCain's positions are. He changes them daily.

Posted by No longer known as McCain/Crist '08! | September 18, 2008 3:27 PM
20

Theres just no justifying allowing another Republican into the Whitehouse until theyve learned their lesson. While i'm politically a libertarian, I'm also practical in realizing idealism doesn't matter a whole lot when it's getting steam rolled by doublespeak assholes.

With Democrats I don't have a lot of negative expectations that are beyond normal like capital gains increases, or lamebrain social program spending that is mismanaged or unnaccountable. For the most part Democrats are like that bumbling Uncle that likes to smoke cigars and drink cheap american beers at the bowling alley and occasionally is involved in some scheme that never quite pans out, but also lectures you on doing well in school or going to church.

Republicans have set a new bar in incompetent mismanagement. It isn't even a hands off passive approach that has failed us (which I think is warranted most the time), it is an active shift in government resources towards antilibertarian activities that has left me simply breathless. I am a results oriented person and the results of Republicans in control have been so shitty for so many that I feel a moral obligation to vote against them. This doesnt even begin to talk about McCain/Palin as a ticket which I could go on about for pages and pages.

Finally I'm not going to vote for a libertarian because for all the good idealism they have, they also have a bunch of silly, unpalatable and assinine ideas about government. And i'm not so sure all the good things they want would get implimented while im pretty sure that all the bad things would.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 18, 2008 3:27 PM
21

yay it's the people who don't realize when to shut up vs. the people who don't realize when to shut up

Posted by naan | September 18, 2008 3:28 PM
22

you guys should ask Federal Way Conservative fwcon.wordpress.com to guest blog for this. That guy is a true believer in the most whacked out arguments.

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 18, 2008 3:36 PM
23

And I was against Bush from day one because I could just tell he was a fucking cretin.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 18, 2008 3:44 PM
24

Have PC debate Bailo forever and ever. On a different blog than this one.

Posted by it'smarkmitchell | September 18, 2008 3:47 PM
25

@24: werd.

Posted by Fnarf | September 18, 2008 3:49 PM
26

Mememe! Me versus a plastic bag full of pitbulls!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | September 18, 2008 3:53 PM
27

I nominate my dad. He is a republican I have been having email wars with for the last few months.

He is convinced that McCain and republicans are better for the economy. He is pretty smart (and totally supports the republican line), but I am not sure if he'd be even down for an internet debate.

Posted by Original Monique | September 18, 2008 3:54 PM
28

i like OM's dad, if the dad is down, or someone that fits that profile. you need an articulate, calm, reasonable representative for mccain to get any value out of this. otherwise, you're left with someone voting for mccain because the bible tells them to.

Posted by infrequent | September 18, 2008 4:06 PM
29

Man, OM, I'm sorry. I don't think there are any Republicans even in my family, but that's what we get for being founded in this country by a socialist who didn't want to sing God Save the Queen. (Thanks for that, Grandpa. I could have been in Canada!)

Posted by Abby | September 18, 2008 4:16 PM
30

I would pay a lot of money to see Erica C. Barnett debate Sarah Palin. THAT would be a fun debate to watch. So I nominate ECB against whoever is dumb enough to think McCain is going to do anything but flush the toilet that Bush has dumped our economy in.

Posted by Katy | September 18, 2008 4:18 PM
31

C'mon! You _have_ to do this live. An off-night rental at some venue in town ... you'd fill the place just advertising on the SLOG, and you could arrange for a drink-special using a BINGO card with liberal/conservative talking points.

It'd take, like, two hours to arrange. Maybe four.

Posted by John Galt | September 18, 2008 4:19 PM
32

This is not going to work. All the serious McCain supporters on SLOG are incoherent maniacs. (Many of the serious Obama supporters on SLOG are also incoherent maniacs, but not all of them.) Elenchos seems to think I'm a serious McCain supporter, but he's wrong; I'd end up saying "I don't agree with McCain on that" for about 50% of the issues. There is no way you well get anything that anyone with half a brain wants to read out of this.

Posted by David Wright | September 18, 2008 4:31 PM
33

I emailed my dad. Seriously, I think he'd be pretty good.

Posted by Original Monique | September 18, 2008 4:44 PM
34

I could get my fundie aunt to do it. But, she would probably just copy and paste from her "Obama is a secret Muslim" and "Obama is the Anti-Christ" and "Obama hates America" emails. You probably don't want that.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 18, 2008 5:05 PM
35

I want OM's dad to do it. Bonus points if he lets you put his picture up-- he's hot!

Posted by Jessica | September 18, 2008 5:12 PM
36

I'm so in.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | September 18, 2008 8:02 PM
37

@21

Shut up!

Posted by violet_dagrinder | September 18, 2008 8:18 PM
38

Hell, I think McCain gives douchebags a bad name, and I'd argue his side. I have a philosophy degree. I can argue for things I don't believe until the end of time.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | September 18, 2008 8:20 PM
39

Bailo vs Fnarf for the win.

Then I can mock both sides.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 18, 2008 10:15 PM
40

Aren't Bailo & PC the same person?

Posted by Fillip | September 18, 2008 10:57 PM
41

This is a car wreck I don't think I'll slow down to check out.

Posted by Trevor | September 19, 2008 8:59 AM
42

Where IS Mr Poe?

He's vanished again...

Posted by michael strangeways | September 19, 2008 9:31 AM
43

I hereby move that The Great Debate be moved from the pages of Slog to an actual venue. I mean, how much fun would a Stranger-sponsored presidential-by-proxy debate be? With beer?

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey | September 19, 2008 9:59 AM
44

I third the idea of making this an actual live meatspace debate. Maybe like a drunken boxing match where everybody has to take a shot after each round.

It sucks that the people from the campaigns were too chickenshit to take you up on your offer, dan.

Posted by Super Jesse | September 19, 2008 10:16 AM
45

but half (all) of those "people" actually *are* Mr. Poe...

how can Mr. Poe debate himself? he must be a real master debater to pull that off

Posted by um | September 19, 2008 10:36 AM
46

Fnarf should totally do the republican side but tell him he's doing the democratic side. I've never seen him leave a progressive comment on anything but he likes to mock conservatives.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 10:47 AM
47

I chatted with my dad. He will have an answer for me before the deadline. Woot!

Also, I think an in person debate would be pretty cool.

Posted by Original Monique | September 19, 2008 10:50 AM
48

In-person would be rad. Debate / Drinking Game would be optimal. I think that voting should be broken down by question. The loser has to drink a shot with each failed argument, and so does everybody in the audience supporting the opposite candidate. This will result in a wasted "McCain" and a staggering-drunk majority in the crowd. Sounds like a brilliantly fun evening to me.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | September 19, 2008 11:04 AM
49

You're an idiot, jrrrl. They don't come any more progressive than me. What confuses you is my REALISM.

Posted by Fnarf | September 19, 2008 11:06 AM
50

fnarf, can you explain how these positions that you've advocated are progressive? these are just the ones off the top of my head.

reporters and protesters: should be arrested if someone breaks a window in a "protest zone."

plastic bags: should be in our oceans and landfills.

roads: build more and bigger roads and bridges

transit: not worth the money

your ultra-progressive answers will be used in this comment debate as a mccain surrogate. thanks.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 11:24 AM
51

@26 YES!
@30 YES! YES!

@jrrrl I'm not always on this thing, but I never had the sense that Fnarf was anything except very progressive. Perhaps his occasional sarcasm has misled you?

Posted by nicole | September 19, 2008 12:01 PM
52

jrrrl @ 50: McCain has taken a position against the Seattle bag tax? I had no idea. That might win him some votes in Seattle!

Posted by David Wright | September 19, 2008 12:02 PM
53

#51: no, he's made it very clear that he agrees with the positions above. i don't have an hour to google quotes but if anyone would like to they'll find the same. i thought he was progressive at first too because he likes to make fun of republicans, but i've never seen him take a liberal position on a political issue (not saying he hasn't ever).

#52: i doubt fnarf is terribly conservative on local issues and ultra-progressive on national issues. he's just a local surrogate for mccain and far-right republican ideals in general.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 12:07 PM
54

Yes, Fnarf is for plastic bags in our landfills and oceans like you are for killing babies and redistributing wealth, jrrrl.

Furthermore, roads and transit are sort of the same sphere. Furthermore, disagreeing with your allegedly liberal position, presumably the opposite of the opinions you list, does not mean he holds a conservative viewpoint. Furthermore, a handful of allegedly conservative positions does not a conservative make.

Furthermore, you're a superficial idiot, and I doubt strongly that you could find three people here to allege that Fnarf is even a political moderate, let alone a conservative.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2008 1:08 PM
55

#54, maybe fnarf has some sort of more-progressive-than-everyone-else logic that he's keeping super secret, i don't know. i asked him to explain how someone who is the most progressive person possible could hold those positions. it just seems to me you'd have to be pretty darn mccain-like to hold those views.

i'm not going to spend hours googling fnarf quotes, but please feel free to prove me wrong. i am just saying i have never seen fnarf advocate a progressive stance on a political issue, and have seen him take regressive stances many many times.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 2:10 PM
56

Right, yes, that's all the same bullshit you've been peddling.

Calling the bag tax a distraction with a negligible positive effect is hardly regressive. He's wrong, but not regressive, and he certainly does support progressive environmental policies. And it certainly doesn't warrant you maligning him with a ridiculous lie that you failed to apologize for while feeding me your bullshit.

I don't know his opinions on the rest of the issues you listed. I have no doubt that you probably misrepresented them like I explained above, but without citations, who knows what he really said or meant?

By the by, I remember several of your posts admitting that you were an ignorant, irrational ass. I'm not going to spend hours googling the quotes, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2008 2:44 PM
57

yawn. i'm not the one calling anyone an idiot. i just have observed he seems to be very conservative in his politics.

since you're obsessed with the bag tax, let's play a game of "which bag tax quotes are from fnarf and which are from the ultra-conservative commenters on soundpolitics.com?"

Ah yes, yet another meaningless gesture brought to us by the "eco nuts". Reducing or eliminating plastic, paper or any other type of grocery bag will accomplish absolutely nothing measurable for or against Mother Nature so why bother?
Bags are stupid and meaningless. They're an excuse for rich-country nitwits to pat themselves on the back for being "green" as they load their canvas bags bulging with other plastic products into the backs of their giant SUVs.
This is the same kind of bullshit that erupted in the eighties with the disposable diaper scare. Remember? Supposedly 40% of our landfills were made up of disposable diapers, and we only had five years of landfill left, and we were all going to die. But it's not true; diapers have always been a trivial part of landfill, and landfills have ALWAYS been five years from filling.

Landfills in general are not even a particularly important part of ecological protection.

Didn't this all start with the huge "Sargasso Sea" of plastic bags drifting along somewhere in the Pacific rather than the plain old litter and resource squandering issues?

No one actually knows the magnitude or minitude of that problem.

Have we all been diverted to the phony landfill crisis?

hint: the two more extreme right wing quotes are from fnarf.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 3:12 PM
58

None of those quotes indicate a regressive or conservative stance on the environment.

So anyway, how bad is the plastic bag problem?

Fnarf, in fact, was particularly insistent that banning plastic bottles would go a lot farther than banning plastic bags. Why do suppose that would be?

It's worth noting that Will in Seattle, one of the more ridiculously outspoken liberals on this blog, was also against the bag tax.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2008 3:30 PM
59

conservative = reactionary = status quo = those quotes, and all of fnarf's positions that i've seen. i think you guys must not understand what "conservative" and "progressive" mean.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 3:54 PM
60

Jrrrl blurts:

reporters and protesters: should be arrested if someone breaks a window in a "protest zone."
Never said any such thing. I think that ANYONE who breaks a window, in a protest zone or out of one, should be arrested. I do think that large protests that degenerate into violence cast guilt on ALL the participants, not just the easy-to-disown anarchist few. That's a cop out.

plastic bags: should be in our oceans and landfills.
Never said any such thing. I did say that plastic bags are an exceedingly trivial part of the plastics problem in the ocean, which is true. I also said that Seattle taxing or banning a small segment of the plastic bag use in the city will have an exceedingly trivial effect on that exceedingly trivial portion, which is also true.
For the record, I support a ban on small plastic drink bottles (under 48 oz.)
roads: build more and bigger roads and bridges
This is just laughable; it's the exact opposite of what I've argued, over and over and over. Listen, sweetie, I've been talking about induced demand longer than you've been ALIVE.
transit: not worth the money
Never said any such thing. I was a loud and vocal supporter of the monorail in this forum and elsewhere, and was screaming when it was voted down; since then, facing reality, I've been a vocal supporter of Sound Transit.
The fact that you don't know that suggests that you cannot read, or cannot separate what you read from what you want to you see there. Frankly, your criticism of my positions is ignorant and unhinged. You do not know what you are talking about. Posted by Fnarf | September 19, 2008 4:19 PM
61

And Jrrrl, you know, I've actually been in the ocean, and I've walked the ocean beaches in the State of Washington, and seen and photographed the plastic waste that blankets them. Guess what? Plastic bags, not so much. A few. Plastic water bottles, by the millions. Plastic bottle CAPS, motor oil bottles, fishing lures, miles of cassette tape, broken toys, parts of cars, disposable pens, tampon applicators, CD cases, ripped tarps, opened blister packs, buckets -- all of these things are more common than plastic bags.

I stand by my earlier statement: banning bags is mostly a way for fat-assed hypocrites to pat themselves on the back while they carry their six-packs of Dasani back to their hybrid SUVs.

You think that's a conservative point of view. That's hilarious. You're even dumber than I thought.

Posted by Fnarf | September 19, 2008 4:25 PM
62
Everyone in that mob [downtown during the wto protests] is guilty of the crimes of any single member of that mob. That's how mobs work.

I applaud the police for the restraint they showed that weekend.

But if you ride in a group with hyper aggressive douche bags, you ARE one. That's how mobs work.
Didn't do any of those things? If you stand with the mob, you are the mob. You can't pick and choose.

Fuck the WTO protesters, fuck them hard, fuck them forever. Your little nicks and bruises are unimpressive to me. Being forced to sit in a hot bus for a couple of hours -- oh, my, how terrible.

it's impossible to find quotes about transit and roads because your name shows up on every page (and so do transit and roads pretty much), but i recall you arguing that we need a bigger 520 bridge because it "transports more people" and that spending money on buses is a waste of money.

i hadn't seen you comment about plastic bottles so there's a progressive stance there. i said i don't read all posts so i don't know if you have taken progressive stances before. i guess you supported 2007 prop 1, but that was really a mixed measure. i'm pretty sure slog didn't exist in 1997-2004 when the new monorail was being decided.

i really don't want to argue the merits of the bag tax, but please listen to the reasonable neocon above about bags on beaches or google the phrases "plastic bag" "sargasso sea" "north pacific central gyre" to see why plastic bags don't show up on shores.

also, while you're at it, please google "conservative" and "progressive." being anti-bag tax is by definition the conservative position -- it has nothing to do whether you're right or not. i think you are confusing "progressive" with "good" and "conservative" with "bad", which explains why you think you are progressive and you don't like republicans.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 5:21 PM
63
i recall you arguing that we need a bigger 520 bridge because it "transports more people" and that spending money on buses is a waste of money.
Just how stupid are you, exactly?
Look, I will meet you in a public place and hand you a hundred fucking dollars in nickels if you can find ONE post by me ANYWHERE that calls for a bigger 520 bridge.
You are OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND.
What I have said over and over and over again is that it doesn't matter how big a replacement bridge you build, because there's nowhere for the cars to go when they get to the other side. I-5 can't take them, Montlake can't take them. All you're doing is creating bigger backups on the bridge, or before it on the other side.
Now, if you don't like my position on the WTO riots, that's fine. But DON'T you dare misrepresent my positions on other matters like this. It makes you look like a fucking simpleton. It makes you look like Will in Motherfucking Seattle.
God DAMN. Posted by Fnarf | September 19, 2008 5:53 PM
64

sheesh, i'll search around when i have some time because i want those nickels, but the logistics of where to build roads have little or nothing to do with political ideology anyway. my point is just that we should build a 100 story mixed-income apartment building in the middle of volunteer park like they have in vancouver.

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 6:18 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.