Aggression

There is no doubt that this election season has been filled with aggression and attacks, in both directions, almost without cease. The candidates, especially Mitt Romney in the most recent debate, have not been viewed in a positive light by voters and the media because of this very aggression.

This is something I have put a lot of thought into in the days since the debate. I have seen attack ads after attack ads and rallies filled with slams of the opposing side. All of this and then something, this time, left me uneasy; A bad taste in my mouth. I felt unhappiness towards Mr. Romney.

But, why?

Should he not be aggressive?
Should he not be passionate?
Should he not ask the questions he has been asking?
Am I angry with Mitt Romney, or am I angry at the very topics he is questioning?

All of these questions, and I’m not sure I have the answers for them all, or any. I do know one thing: I am skeptic of President Obama’s economic policy. When it comes down to it, we have watched our deficits grow at exponential rates within the last 4 years. Mitt Romney obviously shares the same opinion, and feels as though he could do a better job.

And who knows? He might be able to.

But, I ask you, whomever you might be, if you shared the feelings I had towards Romney after the debate, is there any other type of campaign that could possibly end with Romney winning, other than the way it is currently being run? Would his message be effective if he were more agreeable? More polite to the president?

Or would he just be good at words?

You see, Mitt Romney, if he wants to win the election, needs to convince the electorate not necessarily to vote for him, but not to re-elect the incumbent.

This election is very different than the last. George Bush had reached his term limit, and could not be re-elected. The election was between two new guys. Two guys that had an equal chance to get their message out.

This is not that election.

Advertisements

Debate 2

image

What can a person say about a debate when nothing new is said within the debate. This debate is very difficult to gauge because there is little more to take away other than the ways in which the two candidates conducted themselves.

To address what was actually said, simply think partisan. Think guns, immigration, and economic policy, and you’ve got it. Think of all the tag lines that have become cliches of both campaigns, and you’ve got it. Think of all the claims that have have been used against the opposing candidate, especially those vehemently opposed, and sometimes proven incorrect, and you’ve got it.

So, because the popular vote is nothing more than a vote of popularity, and these are the actions being condoned by the candidates by saying nothing worth paying attention to, we need to focus on the favorable and non-favorable ways in which they conduct themselves which results in their popularity.

Mitt Romney’s aggression, which served him well in the first debate, was a negative in this debate. His interruptions, and lack of respect for the moderator left viewers, especially myself, dissatisfied. Romney is still yet to clarify the ways in which he plans to do many of the things he wants to do, and this leaves many dissatisfied.

Barack Obama’s sneers and snickering, left viewers feeling like they had a president that lacked leadership and compassion. His interruptions of his competitor, and moderator, left the viewer feeling like he wasn’t taking the situation seriously. Obama’s unwillingness to accept his administration’s shortcomings and downfalls, and unwillingness to accept blame of poor performance instead of passing the buck, left many unhappy.

When it comes down to it, the debate wasn’t favorable for either candidate. Neither candidate said anything worth while, and neither left a favorable image of themselves.

The question, at least for myself, is who hurt themselves the least? What are your thoughts?

Debate 1

image

This week, the “Presidential candidates” (because I guess there are only two of them and we should forget all of the third parties) squared off for the first of three rounds of debates. Both candidates came in with a good idea of the talking points they wanted to mention. So much so, that the night seemed like each candidate had a checklist of buzzwords and all they were doing was going down, checking them off one by one.

That was until Romney dropped a bomb. “Trickle down government.”

This is such an interesting concept.

Republicans are often times troubled by big government. They think that government, over the last 50 years, has become too big, and too inefficient to sustain.

Democrats look at this scenario a little bit differently. They look at economic hardship, or any hardship for that matter (think healthcare), as a problem they would like to personally fix or at least influence positively. This thought process leads to multiple programs designed to help “those in need.” This leads to more government agencies, more government workers, and more spending.

Now, what is interesting is that with big government comes more hierarchy, not much different than big business. According to Romney, money has to trickle down through the system before it ever reaches those in need.

In the debate, Romney made┬áthe correlation that Obama’s economic plan was about the same as his (trickle down), except not as beneficiary to the private sector.

What do you think?