THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Looking at both debates, it seems both candidates are using lines and words for their ad campaigns to point out the other’s faults and their strengths. The format of a Town Hall setting is not as useful or structured as the last debate at the Lynn University. The Town Hall is too much of a “get your question asked” style with the candidates yelling and talking over each other. The moderators seem to lose control of the debate as it went on and it was more of a shouting match then an actual debate. Also the debates feature a the incumbent, who has 3 ½ years of a record to go on, and the challenger, who hasn’t been a Governor for awhile and has no record, per se, to run on and can easily say ‘I can do better than the President”.

As for the debate itself, questions are being asked but neither candidate is willing to give full answers or barely answer the question. They seem to already have a script of what they intend to say and repeatedly veer off topic to other points they want to make. As far as the Social and economic issues, they are clear contrast on how each candidate wants to tackle things. The one pressing question I would have for both of them are how they expect to get the things down with a Congress controlled by the Republicans and the Senate controlled by the Democrats. For example, President Obama said “Fiscal Cliff” is not going to happen but how does he get the Republicans to go along with the not letting sequestration without offering some type of incentives. Also, both candidates are campaigning on making jobs and getting employment down, but neither say specifically how they will do it. The idea of Social Security privatization, Medicare overhaul, etc. and neither offer details on how they would do these things.

The last debate shouldn’t even be called a debate because both candidates agreed on mostly everything the other side, which to me, is quite interesting. Gov Romney has been saying the whole campaign that President Obama is failing in leadership abroad, wrong with the decision to leave Afghanistan in 2014, not engaging enough in Pakistan or Syria, but when asked these particular questions about what he would do in these situations, he pretty much echoed exactly what the current President is doing. How can you, for months, on a campaign trail, say the foreign policy is weak and needs to be changed, but have no details on what you would change?. On the other hand, President Obama was more aggressive in his remarks, seems more confident of what he was saying, but still went back to social issue to try to shore up what he missed out on in the first debate. They both agree with Iran, withdrawing from Afghanistan, drones, etc. But the one difference I saw and President Obama seized on it is defense spending. Gov Romney stated he wanted to increase the military spending and add more troops, ships, airplanes, etc., and when asked how he was going to fund it, he said he was going to repeal Obamacare and cut some programs. First problem with that is, the Senate, as it is constructed, is controlled by the Democrats and they are not going to allow that to happen. So, with that, how does he pay for the increase in defense spending? President Obama, on the other hand, wants to decrease defense spending in major areas in order to keep big ticket items like Medicare, Welfare, Social Security and other social items, which can be problematic, considering the rate that China is building its weapons and forces. He also tends to be reactive in foreign policy and it takes his Administration to long to act in certain situations, which I feel is a show of hesitation.

These debates are little more that a media show for the networks and provide no new information or details on how a candidate will lead the country. No one is talking about the real issues like, how will they work with the other party on bipartisan efforts to make the country stronger, to generate jobs, or pass well needed laws. Both candidates are held hostage by the respective party who both have dig their heels in on their “non-negotiable”. It is mostly “red meat’ to their own parties and lip service to independents and undecided voters.