Last week I had something to say about the Presidential debate fiasco. My main point then was that the format, the moderator, Willard Romney, and to some extent President Obama, were all to blame. Beyond the matter of the format (which allowed for blistering and rude interruptions from either candidate apparently), I pointed out that these debates have really become, in effect, bi-partisan rather than non-partisan debates. The article I linked to claimed certain debate sponsors were withdrawing their support for this reason.
The pundits have harped on one point, a point which I believe is mistaken. Overall, most have harped on this one point to the virtual exclusion of all others. They have claimed that Romney was the "winner" of this debate. Besides making the debate into a wrestling match or a baseball game, this contention is wrong. First and foremost, a debate is supposed to inform citizens or at least voters. In this sense, only the truth should win. The truth suffered terribly in last week's debate, mostly because of Romney's ill-informed and possibly purposeful distortions. If his distortions were ill-informed he does not know enough to be President. If they were purposeful he is ethically unfit, for lying to voters on national television is inexcusable.
There have been many articles which have attempted to hold Romney to account. I will try to post links to some of them in coming days. The main claim, and the biggest untruth, is that trickle-down economics has not worked in the past and will not work now. This is the argument Mr. Obama should have made. As Pres. Clinton said at the Democratic Convention, the Republicans' main idea is to "double down on 'trickle-down.'" This is true yet neither Lehrer nor Obama effectively pinned him down on this point. And the claim made by both candidates that their positions on Social Security were essentially the same has also been found to be untrue.
As we dig deeper, we find the race hasn't much changed, that actually the facts are trending in Obama's favor with an improved unemployment picture. At the same time and looking back, I hoped for a bigger stimulus in 2009. But I also hoped the American people would rise up in indignation over the ascension of G. W. Bush to the Presidency, solely because the Supreme Court decided he could. But I do digress.
Looking deeper, what of the white vote? It has been said that white voters have deserted the President and vice versa. But is either true? The article linked below says, Wait a minute -- look closer. I believe that when we actually start looking at the numbers, things look fairly good for Mr. Obama. Now, if we will wake up to the huge Republican dirty tricks operation, including widespread efforts to suppress minority and poor white votes, we will have a chance at an outcome we can live with. But next time, let's have a non-partisan debate process, if there are to be any debates at all.
Obama Doing Better Among White Voters?
The pundits have harped on one point, a point which I believe is mistaken. Overall, most have harped on this one point to the virtual exclusion of all others. They have claimed that Romney was the "winner" of this debate. Besides making the debate into a wrestling match or a baseball game, this contention is wrong. First and foremost, a debate is supposed to inform citizens or at least voters. In this sense, only the truth should win. The truth suffered terribly in last week's debate, mostly because of Romney's ill-informed and possibly purposeful distortions. If his distortions were ill-informed he does not know enough to be President. If they were purposeful he is ethically unfit, for lying to voters on national television is inexcusable.
There have been many articles which have attempted to hold Romney to account. I will try to post links to some of them in coming days. The main claim, and the biggest untruth, is that trickle-down economics has not worked in the past and will not work now. This is the argument Mr. Obama should have made. As Pres. Clinton said at the Democratic Convention, the Republicans' main idea is to "double down on 'trickle-down.'" This is true yet neither Lehrer nor Obama effectively pinned him down on this point. And the claim made by both candidates that their positions on Social Security were essentially the same has also been found to be untrue.
As we dig deeper, we find the race hasn't much changed, that actually the facts are trending in Obama's favor with an improved unemployment picture. At the same time and looking back, I hoped for a bigger stimulus in 2009. But I also hoped the American people would rise up in indignation over the ascension of G. W. Bush to the Presidency, solely because the Supreme Court decided he could. But I do digress.
Looking deeper, what of the white vote? It has been said that white voters have deserted the President and vice versa. But is either true? The article linked below says, Wait a minute -- look closer. I believe that when we actually start looking at the numbers, things look fairly good for Mr. Obama. Now, if we will wake up to the huge Republican dirty tricks operation, including widespread efforts to suppress minority and poor white votes, we will have a chance at an outcome we can live with. But next time, let's have a non-partisan debate process, if there are to be any debates at all.
Obama Doing Better Among White Voters?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment to "The Musical Patriot." Moderation is used on this blog to help prevent spam and other inappropriate messages. Please complete this form so your comment may be processed for possible inclusion on the blog. Thank you for being a reader of "The Musical Patriot!"