After yesterday evening's 1st gubernatorial debate between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, which took place at the UC Davis campus, was complete, many walked away with mixed emotions. The night's discussion (or better word, argument) revolved around experience v. inexperience, politics v. business and Whitman's annoying evil smile v. Brown's tales of how he'd use to close the bars when he was governor before!
True, Brown was quite all - over the place and gave convoluted answers that always related to his success. And yes, Whitman always found a way to answer the question given to her with, "We need to put Californians back in work,". Overall, a poor performance in some aspects on BOTH sides, with some brief shining moments.
Typical conversation: (of course made - up, but you'll all get the picture)
Reporter: How will you improve California's economy in such as recession as today?
Brown: Well, in the past I got us through other hurtles.
Whitman: Californians need to be put back to work.
Reporter: What are your first initial plans for you if you are elected governor?
Brown: Well, I was governor before, so I'll just do whatever...I got through it before....I have a wife now...I won't close the bar the night I get elected like last time though!
Whitman: Well, we need to get Californians back to work!
Reporter: One more question, what is 1+1?
Brown: Well, last time I was governor, it was 2...so today it is still 2.
Whitman: Well I don't know, but we need to get Californians back to work!
You see? The overall debate also touched on issues such as economic problems, tax cuts, education funding (UC/CSU system), water bill, illegal immigration and the death penalty. Overall, there can't be 2 winners, but I guess there is nothing wrong with...2 losers???!!!
War for Ukraine Day 787: The Butcher’s Bill from Dnipro
45 minutes ago
5 comments:
I was not impressed with debate, but then again, I'm not crazy about either candidate. I too noticed that Brown was all over the place and Whitman never managed to answer the question directly. Whitman was being a bit unfair when she kept going after Brown instead of what he stood for. I did notice that neither candidate really offered concrete solutions to problems, but instead offered really vague answers that could be applied to almost any question.
If I were to pick the lesser of two evils, I would have to go with Jerry Brown.
Hahaha I appreciate the humor of your post, Alex. After all, both candidates didn't do a good job on either side, but instead chose to deflect a lot of the important aspects of the questions. So, I think by suggesting that two losers is a possibility, you've characterized the situation perfectly. Brown actually kind of conveys inexperience by using his "off of his head" answers, even though I think most people don't really appreciate that tactic. Personally, it put me off at first and I began to lean towards Whitman's argument based on the fact that she was more composed. However, Whitman can seem less independent by going off a scripted talk, which not only exposes her rigidity but also her social distance from the public.
I completely agree with Gurjote that Whitman unnecessarily attacked Brown in an overly negative way, and that both candidates have their own great flaws.
We'll just have to see where it goes from here, and maybe one candidate can actually make him or herself viable for the public's vote of confidence,
Although both Brown and Whitman made some valid points during last nights debate, I agree with Alex's statement that it was an "overall... poor performance," and I can't say that either actually won the debate.
More specifically, I would like to point out both Brown and Whitman's lack of specificity. Not only did both Brown and Whitman dodge questions (as mentioned by the others), but also used phony words that should have been clearly explained. On several occasions, Whitman said that we need to "streamline" and "reform" the government. I admit that "streamline" is a pretty word that makes me think of a smoothly run government and sleek futuristic technology, but seriously, what do these words really mean? Brown is at fault as well: "green jobs?" Both candidates should have elaborated on their points instead of using nice words that are essentially meaningless. It's like writing an English essay and saying the author used "specific diction." Really? What exactly is "specific diction?" - something both candidates need to work on.
I didn't see the debate, but from what I've read on this post I think both candidates lack experience. And I thought Schwarzenneger was bad!! I just hope that whichever candidate does become governor, actually will help improve the state in all the areas that need improvement for the better... and soon!!!!
Honestly, I thought the debate had no winner, instead of having two winners. I remember in class when we discussed Brown and Whitman, citing that while Brown was "not scripted enough," Whitman was "too well-scripted." This was evident in the debates as when the first question was asked to Whitman about how she is going to solve the budget crisis, the proctor, after hearing her response, re-asked the question because Meg Whitman did not fully answer the question. This shows that Whitman probably rehearsed a response similar to the question, and as a result, went with her rehearsal skills. It simply shows that she is unable to think on her feet. We shouldn't have a governor that can only provide adequate responses to problems if they are only well-rehearsed, or else what's she going to do during a crisis? Wait until she comes up with a good enough answer which may be who knows when?
Meanwhile, Brown wasn't so hot either. All he reiterated was the fact that he had experience in office and if he can "do it once, [he] can do it again." However, the things Brown said weren't much better than Meg Whitman. In response to the question about what he would do about the rising UC fees, he said he would do nothing until he helped the budget crisis. I mean, although the budget crisis is a big ordeal, I'm sure an adequate governor can think of something, maybe not even money related, to help. Moreover, he did have some bad statistics--losing a surplus of 5 billion dollars in surplus and taking the California budget to a negative one billion dollar deficit? And that supposedly "strong" maintenance of the crime rate in Oakland is pretty funny when all of our parents tell us to stay out of Oakland specifically because of the weekly crimes and murders that go on there...
Overall, both weren't so great in the debates. Although both have good intentions for California, before either of them can become our governor, I think they should, as Andrea said, work on their "specific diction" and learn how to provide better responses as issues in greater magnitude will definitely arise when either becomes governor of California.
Post a Comment