I have read through a large number of commentaries and editorials over the past couple of days and ultimately all I'm seeing in regards to politics is how uneventful the most recent presidential debate was. How the articulate Romney overpowered President Obama, whom only seemed "tired". The opinion article Jeremy D. Mayer writes within The Christian Science Monitor, dated October 4th 2012, has basically hit the spot on the nose in regards to this debate (If you can even call it that!). Mayer is an associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University who often gives his input in regards to US Politics. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to Presidential Campaigns and is never shy about voicing his strong opinions.
Obama never tried to go on the attack against Romney
Mayer doesn't exactly join a side in this article but rather critique's both Romney and President Obama in how they handled the debate in general. Neither candidate had a flawless argument. Statements such as "Obama said almost nothing that would appeal to someone who wasn't already with him" and "you point out the numerous contrary positions [Romney's] had in public life, and say that he’s a man who will say anything to win an election. A man without conviction or principle," are threaded throughout the entire article. He criticizes Obama and then turns around to bring down Romney, never to exactly pinpoint a Presidential Candidate that may come ahead. However, there is one statement in particular that may be the most important statement within Mayer's article, "campaign strategy says that the candidate who has a likability advantage is the one who has the better ability to go on the offensive." In this case, Romney comes out ahead. He went to the debate looking as if he "wanted" to be there when President Obama was quiet, reserved, and just looked exhausted. Who wants a tired President who can not attack when it's necessary?
If Mr. Plouffe told Obama to be quietly dignified and avoid attacking Romney as a flipflopper, he should be fired.
Overall, Mayer points out that this debate did not suggest a clear winner but rather just muddied the waters further for those undecided. Neither candidate made a real impression other than Romney really knowing how to talk pretty and Obama looking tired. This is certainly not what a Presidential Debate, an all important event that should help determine who is fit to run the United States, should entail. The questions were elementary, not even coming close to those controversial topics of the present day, and the answers were unrealistic or too lame to even be considered. Luckily there are two debates left. Romney has the chance to put his foot in his mouth, and Obama has the chance to attack (or vice versa).
You can’t go before the American people, and give the impression that a debate – one of the core parts of the presidential campaign – is a chore you are above.
In conclusion, I would have to completely agree with Mayer and what is said within this article. HOWEVER it doesn't help whatsoever when it comes to being an undecided individual. The Presidential campaign is at a point in which they are aiming towards those that haven't decided whether to back Romney or President Obama. This article and even the debate that occurred does not help the undecided to sway either way! Romney spits out words that he knows people want to hear, but can those words become a reality or will they simply remain a fantasy? Obama doesn't pinpoint the lies that Romney spiels but rather takes it and goes around the subject in general. Can we not find a candidate that is honestly and whole-heartily working to make United States better? Bah... Probably just my naivete speaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment