This past week we were re-introduced to our two presidential candidates in the first presidential debate. I am the type of individual that follows our countries politics, but I wont pick sides. We are given a great opportunity by having the freedom to debate and give our own personal opinions, but this past weeks debate was very disappointing. Like most people I have heard all of the pundits analysis of the debate, about who won and lost, who this debate was more important too, and so on. I was disappointed, because I felt what we watched was not a debate.
President Obama, seemed very disinterested but I felt he did a good job of explaining what his plans were for the upcoming for years. Mitt Romney on the other hand was much more engaged, in the sense that he seemed to want to be there. His responses on the other hand were much more predetermined, and at times I felt he wasn't answering the questions being asked, especially anything he was asked to rebuttal. Overall, I felt this 1st debate was very disappointing, because it was too much of a predetermined question and answer. Hopefully the 2nd town hall debate is much more reminiscent of what a great debate is.
I agree. Immediately following the debate, the first thing people were asked, and quick were quick to answer, was 'who do you think won the debate'? Rather than discuss or comment on a policy related issue given by either candidate, news media polls the next morning asked the public, 'Who do you think won last nights presidential debate'? I mean, are you serious people?
ReplyDeleteI think that the debates, unfortunately, have become a way for America to decide who they think looks/sounds more "presidential" then an event for genuine discussion of pressing issues. The public is more concerned with who showed more charisma or who "scored more points". That goes along with the competitive American nature, though. There needs to be a winner and a loser; people are not satisfied with discussion of policies and issues. It's truly the Super Bowl of politics. The public is more interested in how the candidates look and who "won", as you said in your post.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree! While we watch in real-time, we're merely spectators and we never really dive-in unless we have a sense of safety and positive acknowledgement of our thoughts. We should be in the mindset of open to supporting both sides, and while the facts are presented making an active decision, but instead, we scrutinize both sides as they argue (or keeping with the football idea, play), and then make decisions of who "should've won" vs. "yes, this person/team won because of the effective arguments/rationales/plays they voiced/performed."
DeleteI couldn’t agree more with both Anthony’s and Randy’s view of the political debate that happened. Politics aside, I do think that Romney seemed much more at ease and lively which was surprising seeing that Obama is normally such a poised and passionate speaker. Nonetheless, Randy’s point is quite valid. Romney may have been the “winner” but what about his rhetoric? The day after the debate, I had heard about the presidential debate being fact-checked. Ironically, both Obama and Romney seemed to provide arguments and statements that weren’t inherently wrong but just blown out of proportion and exasperated. Can someone still be considered a winner if many of their statements were inherently false?
ReplyDelete