The race to poison the ear of Denmark is drawing to a close. A front page article in last Friday’s Los Angeles Times called attention to the “witchcraft of wit” our presidential candidates decided to use during their first debate Thursday night.

“Candidates Call Facts as They See Them,” boomed the caption. “Rivals take turns putting their spin on the data related to war on terror and national security.”

“Some facts were oversimplified, others were exaggerated and still others dropped from sight entirely,” staff writer Paul Richter reported. Topics whose facades were shaded Thursday night ranged from the war in Iraq to homeland security and the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea.

In an age when great orators have either been booed off stage or become extinct, and at a time when truth is not a priority, what do these debates mean to the American public?

The judgments cited in a related article in the same paper by reporters Lianne Hart and Zeke Minaya make the American public sound like film directors or casting agents.  “With Kerry, I don’t feel any sincerity or conviction,” commented Sharon Toney, an interior decorator. Another Republican, Jack Swickard, remarked, “My biggest fear was that Bush would make a gaffe, and he didn’t.”

What is the magic ingredient that will provoke Americans to go out of their way to vote?

If the television show American Idol succeeds in drawing in twenty million votes a week, doing so without eloquence or truth, maybe the spice of the televised debates will do the same for the presidential election this November.