The winner of the debate is… NEITHER! In this debate, both
sides colorfully displayed their goals in the upcoming election. Each candidate
had their ups and downs and it was hard to say whether or not there was clear
victor. From the beginning to the end, this debate was much more heated. That
fact could make it a major turn off to viewers. However… Let’s break it down!
Romney’s strength lies in the business portion. Not a
surprise. Zero. Obama tried attacking him by saying that Romney called for a bankruptcy
to the companies in Detroit. However, Obama took in all the bankrupt car
companies! Romney’s plan for oil does create a better economy. (Of course it
does cost great pollution to the earth) And he always lays out his plan for
economics, even though it might be a bit vague. Socially, Romney came out as
the weaker candidate, but the mention of the Salt Lake Olympics probably
reminded many people of a great contribution by Romney. Almost single-handedly
he saved the Olympics. (Of course, it became more of an economical aspect.
Romney needs to hit the economics hard.) Romney definitely had an advantage in the
economics portion because of his economic background and the state of the
current economy.
Obama’s strength lies in social/global issues. Again, Zero Surprise. Since more of
those questions were asked in this debate, Obama shined. When asked about
illegal immigrants, Obama gave answers that were much friendlier to current
ones. Obama also pinpointed flaws in Romney’s social issues. The way he pulled
off the near flawlessly timed joke really put Romney in a bit of a squeeze.
Finally, Obama’s final statements about how some jobs are gone forever give a
feeling a truth. Obama knew that jobs were gone to China and said sure they’re
gone. And that was a big winning point in my opinion. Realizing failure and
trying the best to build from there is something I believe everyone should do.
The debate was much more dynamic than the last debate and
Obama has finally shown us things we want to hear. The question is what do the
people America want more? Do they want a leader in the economics sector? Or do
the American people care for each other and want to have it “more fair” for
everyone? These debates make it seem like a race between what is more important to you.
6 comments:
While I completely agree that each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses (neither is a perfect candidate, of course) I must disagree that there was no winner. Both were on their game, but one particular comment from Romney really pushed me to give him the thumbs down. This is very much a personal opinion, and I am of course biased, but this is the comment in question:
"Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.
She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you." (Taken from here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_print.html).
"IF you're going to have women in the work place"? News flash: "you" do and "you" will. I understand that the point Romney was going for is that he understands some parents need to be able to put family, especially younger children, first, but the way he said it rubs me completely the wrong way and I think it is very telling about exactly how he feels about half the population.
I full heartedly agree with Eavan that Obama was a clear winner in this debate (and please note that I too may be somewhat bias). Not only was I taken aback by Romney's comments regarding women in the workforce, but his example of searching through "binders filled with women" seemed to me the very definition of affirmative action.
I agree with Eavan and Sharon that Obama appeared to be the better man because he was more sincere than Rommney was. However, I think that under the current state of economy, Obama was doomed to have a more difficult time during the debate in the big picture because poeple traditionally care more about the bread and butter issue than social euqality. Only when a person's basic surival needs are met can he have the time to think of/support the cause of more complex issues. Basic needs(the bread and better issues) always take precdent (I think).
In addition, even mroe sadly, I think a significant numbers of Americans would question why, when Obama had four years to create the soceity he desribed in his speech, he did not. I think most Americans are going to overlook the fact that Obama could not realize such visions because of the obstacles in the Congress. However, traditionally people always blame their suffering on the government, not the Congree because the president is a more promient symbol of the government than the Congree is.
I agree that the answer regarding women's pay leaves Romney vulnerable as it sounded like he was frozen in time circa 1990, when professional women had been in the workforce in increasing numbers for just long enough to raise the glass ceiling/affirmative action sorts of questions. Also, Romney's account of seeking out qualified women has been contradicted by reputable sources in MA, who report that there was a bipartisan effort to identify female candidates during the election year that was presented to the incoming Governor (which happened to be Romney.)
Also, Romney's account of having saved the corrupt Salt Lake City Olympics should recognize that they got a $1.5 billion bailout from the federal government. Accelerating infrastructure projects is no easy feat and I do give Romney credit for being a expert executive and project manager. I just think there is much more to the job of President to being a de facto CEO of the government.
Obama's low point IMO was his attempt on insisting on making a point about education. It is just as well that Crowley sat him down as I think Obama's education policies are generally terrible beyond the "investing in education is important" boilerplate. He did promote legislation to reform the student loan program and I'm surprised he didn't remind the audience of that.
I think this debate definitely heated things up as the candidates got more involved and more in each others faces. There were a few moments of watching it that were even uncomfortable for me.
I think both candidates did well in answering the questions without putting themselves in tricky situations and sounded well prepared and confident. One part, however, that seemed a bit funky to me is when both candidates were asked and flat out ignored the question about gas prices. While it may have been a bit of an unfair question about something that was mostly out of the executives control, it still seemed like the candidates decided not even to address it a little bit.
Although Obama seems to be the more likable candidate due to the fact that people like his social and global policies more than Romney's, I think many of us are forgetting the importance of the economy. Maybe it's because we are in high school and are still unable to grasp the concepts of money like an adult would, so we tend to think less about how the economy truly affects us, but I'm sure many voters consider the economic issues important, especially the voters who are barely making ends meet. That being said, if Obama doesn't find a way to convince people that he'll be able to bring the economy back up faster, Romney will definitely be sure to emphasize his superiority on the subject, thus giving him a much greater advantage than we may realize.
Post a Comment