Presidential debates, the new reality programming that have threatened even the primacy of the Trumpmeister and bikinied bimbettes scarfing worms, are not the way to select a President. You are being told otherwise, in the most reverential of terms, by everyone with a stake in the debate industry, undoubtedly the most lucrative seasonal work available, but don’t believe them. We endured all three, four if you count the Veep dry-shaving Pretty Boy’s legs with a rusty razor right there on TV.

Some debate critics argue that sophisticated government policy cannot be enunciated in two-minute bites. Sure it can. Taxes are bad. If you don’t leave some children behind, no one will be left for unions to recruit. More people need guns than need health insurance. (Have you ever been to a health insurance show?) War is hell, but appeasement is national suicide. Big government is the answer to only one known question: What do liberals want?

See? Sophistication, nuance, some zen-think, the power of simple, irrefutable truth.

But that’s not the point. Being President is the worst desirable job in the universe, but no part of it consists of acting like a contestant on "Jeopardy!" or riffing away at open mike night down to the comedy club. Press conferences may come close, but not very.

What did you actually learn from the debates?

The President isn’t going to drool. The Senator is genetically incapable of uttering two consecutive sentences that do not contain statistics. It is true that he did not cite Thorsten Veblen in his economic arguments or state the number of hybrid cars that can be powered for three years by one tank of Teresa’s Gulfstream go juice. But then, the concept of conspicuous consumption and the Kerrys’ demonstration thereof do not for populist images make.

Since 86 percent of the American people believe they are part of the 12 percent who are being screwed (plus or minus 3 percent), the Senator complained on behalf of everyone. The President seemed like Mr. Grumpy, not wanting to pay for all those programs, but he’s the one accused of running up deficits and being unwilling to tax the last people who are actually still working.

Both men professed to pray, one more convincingly than the other. Both added that those of us who don’t or who pray to minority deities could still be citizens. The President said he loved his wife. The Senator said he was lucky to have his, and then threw in that his mother harangued him about integrity as she lay dying, which indicates something which we are not licensed to diagnose.

The Senator doesn’t like labels, i.e., don’t call me a liberal. That may be the only word soon to be removed from dictionaries because most liberals had rather be called crack hos. The President is a proud compassionate conservative, said to comfort little children who have been taught that real conservatives will take away their lunch money.

While debate moderators have progressed from the gotcha game of "name three world leaders who are not corrupt" level of the 2000 debates, the Senator forged an even lower road in his answer to the question on sexual politics, something he learned from his trial lawyer/faith healer running mate.

In all fairness, the President made the biggest mistake of the debates. In the beginning of the last debate, he should have calmly walked in, removed his suit jacket, rolled up his sleeves and said, "See? No wires. No strings."

That would have been stagecraft, which is what the debates really represent. They do not now, if they ever did, represent anything more than a show, cheaper than pay-per-view wrestling, but no more honest. For those who have forgotten, the goal is to decide who will be the leader of the free world. That’s not funny.