+ My friend, John Preston, another retired progressive Presbyterian pastor, has a great take on last night's debate. Here it is:
The pundits say that Romney won this first debate. I agree that he was much more aggressive than Obama, projected his knowledge, was energized and of course "looks presidential." Obama started off with more anxiety than what appeared to be a relaxed Romney, and perhaps was a bit too much wonky on policy without perhaps putting enough of a human face on his policies.
The pundits say that Romney won this first debate. I agree that he was much more aggressive than Obama, projected his knowledge, was energized and of course "looks presidential." Obama started off with more anxiety than what appeared to be a relaxed Romney, and perhaps was a bit too much wonky on policy without perhaps putting enough of a human face on his policies.
Probably, on debate points, Romney did win. But there are other factors that will ultimately prevail and they were also glimpsed in the debate. They have to do with temperament, character, and like-ability. But before we comment on these, and my final assessment, I will comment on the tool I used to watch the debate. The coding I spoke of in my initial post was not as helpful as I had hoped....just not sophisticated enough. But viewing the debate even with these principles to score the comments helped me view it better than otherwise would have been the case. I made 22 checks for Romney that fell into what I take to be his six principles and 17 for Obama for what I take to be his. Quantity wise, Romney did better.
Romney made a good point against Obama when he said that Obama had spent his political energy on the health care plan when he should have been emphasizing job growth. Of course, job growth depends on the private sector and their was a need for stimulus to kick the economy back up. Jobs were protected by the federal government by providing money to the state for public sector jobs in teaching, fire, police work, etc.
Obama missed a big opportunity when it came to discussing the role of government. He did make three good points. Keep people safe. Create the social and economic climate for people ... businesses and individuals ... to succeed. And, protect and build up the infrastructure for the common good of all.
Where he missed his opportunity was in not going on to say:
"This is where we differ with Republicans. We do promote economic growth by setting up a positive business climate for businesses to do their thing. In this, we do believe in the power of the market. But, unlike Republicans, we care about fairness to the middle-class, and a safety net for seniors and those who sink into poverty. We care about social justice, we care about all of our citizens."
Romney, in responding to the question of the role of government went to his Tea Party base. He grounded his response in what he said was the constitution. His first statement here was that government's role was to "promote the principals of the constitution" and then went on to enumerate. Defense...religious tolerance..pursuit of happiness...pursue individual dreams.
Those were goals not role.
Obama had the much better two minute closure statement. He was hopeful that America could build on its strengths. He talked about channeling the grit of the American people in a fair way.
By contrast, Romney went apocalyptic. He talked about how things had gone wrong and appealed to fear. He basically proposed himself as the American Savior.
I think that disposition, personality, and character were well revealed, and will begin to detract from Romney's over aggressive debating win. Romney comes across as more mean-spirited, more apocalyptic, with lots of platitudes, but as Obama said, not a lot of detail. This reinforces the narrative that he is a "boss." And, an elite and somewhat arrogant boss at that.
Obama by disposition is more reasoned, and by nature less aggressive. He is more of a "nice guy." He was more counter-punching with Romney than going after him.
In the long run, some of these perceptions shall come into play. Then who is to say who really won this first debate.
Thanks for reading: 10-4-12
Thanks, John
+ Since John mentions an earlier post, here it is:
Romney made a good point against Obama when he said that Obama had spent his political energy on the health care plan when he should have been emphasizing job growth. Of course, job growth depends on the private sector and their was a need for stimulus to kick the economy back up. Jobs were protected by the federal government by providing money to the state for public sector jobs in teaching, fire, police work, etc.
Obama missed a big opportunity when it came to discussing the role of government. He did make three good points. Keep people safe. Create the social and economic climate for people ... businesses and individuals ... to succeed. And, protect and build up the infrastructure for the common good of all.
Where he missed his opportunity was in not going on to say:
"This is where we differ with Republicans. We do promote economic growth by setting up a positive business climate for businesses to do their thing. In this, we do believe in the power of the market. But, unlike Republicans, we care about fairness to the middle-class, and a safety net for seniors and those who sink into poverty. We care about social justice, we care about all of our citizens."
Romney, in responding to the question of the role of government went to his Tea Party base. He grounded his response in what he said was the constitution. His first statement here was that government's role was to "promote the principals of the constitution" and then went on to enumerate. Defense...religious tolerance..pursuit of happiness...pursue individual dreams.
Those were goals not role.
Obama had the much better two minute closure statement. He was hopeful that America could build on its strengths. He talked about channeling the grit of the American people in a fair way.
By contrast, Romney went apocalyptic. He talked about how things had gone wrong and appealed to fear. He basically proposed himself as the American Savior.
I think that disposition, personality, and character were well revealed, and will begin to detract from Romney's over aggressive debating win. Romney comes across as more mean-spirited, more apocalyptic, with lots of platitudes, but as Obama said, not a lot of detail. This reinforces the narrative that he is a "boss." And, an elite and somewhat arrogant boss at that.
Obama by disposition is more reasoned, and by nature less aggressive. He is more of a "nice guy." He was more counter-punching with Romney than going after him.
In the long run, some of these perceptions shall come into play. Then who is to say who really won this first debate.
Thanks for reading: 10-4-12
Thanks, John
+ Since John mentions an earlier post, here it is:
First Presidential election debate tonight, and here's what I plan to do and report on to you afterwords. During the debate I will be coding on 6 basic principles peculiar to each of the parties and candidates. In reviewing these I expect that Romney will have the much easier task. He for example can use the analogy of the household debt we all know as consumers with our Governmental "household ... debt." Obama has a more difficult job in showing for instance how the economic spending stimulus by Government was necessary to contain further deficits. This requires explaining Keynesian economics to people who have never heard of it. In short, Obama must succeed with a conveying a more sophisticated, and I think correct, understanding of economics. Obama must also defend higher taxes on the wealthy and sufficient regulation of businesses. I will provide a brief report on my coding and conclusions tomorrow. I will also assess things like "zinger success and "how the Government fared. You may want to try this coding idea yourself (It involves setting up boxes with catagories and simply checking in real time.) Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment