Hello Class!
For Week Two we are switching to a Gov post. Tonight is a Republican debate. I realize the 2012 presidential election seems very far away, but the election is off and running. It takes about 2 years just to run for the presidency.
The Republican field for 2012 has left many "waiting for Superman" (a common phrase used right now) as no one feels excited about any of the hopefuls.
Here's your task this week,
1. Watch highlights online, or watch the whole debate. It will air in it's entirety on CNN Monday night or you can watch recaps on any web site immediately after the debate.
2. Determine who "won". And give your reasons why. Look at policy statements, smoothness of speech, body language, charisma, and how the crowd responds to consider how to choose your winner.
Keep in mind whether you are a liberal or a conservative (or if you don't even know yet), that you can always learn something from watching a debate. And, since you are knew to this- be aware of your emotions too.
Here's a pre-debate article to give you a little background. Read if BEFORE you watch any parts of the debate:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/us-usa-campaign-republicans-idUSTRE75C0NY20110613
Remember, post by Wednesday morning and chat through Friday :)
Have a great week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Mollie K- After watching the debate in almost its entirity, I have a strong idea of who my favorite candidate will be. Each candidate used their fair share of analogies, circular reasoning, and other devices to try and sway the public's views. However in my opinion Michele Bachmann wasi n fact the strongest candidate during this particular debate.
Bachmann answered each question thoroughly and didn't continue to babble on about the topic longer than what was necessary. She also continues to make eye contact with the person that asked the question, or she looked directly into the audience/camera. Bachmann also used her hands to emphasize certain points, but she didn't overuse them to cause it to be a distraction. Her face and posture remained calm, and she didn't panic and stumble with her words when answering each question. The crowd responded positively to most of her answers with a lot of applause and whistles after the mojority of her comments. She also stuck to her comments she made about abortion, States Rights, and Healthcare, and she didn't switch sides or take back any comments she made during the debate or during her political career. This is important when deciding who is the most sincere about their vows of change for our nation.
With all that beign said I believe Michele Bachmann did "win" this debate because of her strong answers, and the lack of stength from her fellow candidates.
It’s hard to decide who the true winner of the debate last night was, because I’m torn between Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney. Bachmann was very direct in addressing the issues at hand, and her body language showed how confident she was. She spoke very eloquently, especially when it came to Obama care. Saying that she wouldn’t rest until it was repealed if she were president was relief. Seeing as the crowd reacted well to her responses (that one in particular), I would say that she is not only likeable and charismatic individual, but also a strong candidate. Romney, though, won me over with his introduction in the debate, and his response to the Sharia law debate. In both instances, Romney made it clear that he wants America to remain the “hope of the earth”, an ideal that I personally find refreshing. Romney distinguished himself during … debate when he again maintained the ethics of our forefathers- “I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That’s in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.” This reply stood out amidst his opponents’ (Gingrich and Cain) responses of reapplying the loyalty oath that was used against Communists and Nazis. His answer just seemed right. Besides that, Romney too was confident and spoke with meaning- granted, at times he elaborated more than necessary in order to get his point across, but that’s to be expected in a debate.
RE: Mollie
I agree with you, Bachmann did seem to be the overall strongest speaker last night. I was pretty impressed with everything that she said; beginning and end, she stood out. Her body language showed that she was confident in her responses, and C-SPAN even said that she would be a good alternative to Romney. Especially because of her unvaried stance on repealing Obama care, I found her to have the most sincere want for change.
All of the Republican candidates had similar viewpoints and answers for all of the topics discussed. Overall, I think Michele Bachmann won the debate. She answered the questions with more composure than the other candidates. She also stayed on topic more than the others. When answering questions, she got straight to the point. Her hand gestures were used to reinforce her statements and were not distracting. This body language actually portrayed her as energetic and enthusiastic. Her eye contact also helped her to win the debate. The second strongest candidate was Mitt Romney. He was composed and strong when he answered questions, but lacked the enthusiasm and energy of Michele Bachmann. He also elaborated more than needed at times which distracted from what he said earlier. These two candidates stood above the rest because they answered the questions asked instead of answering the questions they wished they were asked. Although I do like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, they often avoided answering the questions, which led to the successes of Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.
All of the candidates used Obama and his supposed failures as a President as a platform for presenting their points. Each candidate presented themselves as well as their ideas in a slightly different manor from one another, however one candidate in particular stood out above the rest; Michele Bachmann. Michele answered each question thoroughly, providing background information in order to support her claims. She did not ramble unnecessarily or refer to other topics that had no relevance. She is a strong speaker, always making sure she enunciates and speaks at a reasonable speed, which a few of her competitors failed to do. Throughout the debate, her opinions did not change, which is important in a presidential candidate. Her plans for health care as well as the economy were made very clear through her explanations. She incorporated hand motions to reinforce what she was saying, but did not overuse them. Her demeanor was calm, yet engaged and she made sure that her attention was focused on the specific person that she was speaking to when that was the case. When speaking generally, she gave her attention to the entire audience, as well as to the cameras. She was the most well-rounded candidate and composed herself professionally throughout the entire debate. Michele Bachmann was without a doubt the winner of this debate because of her seemingly superior speaking skills, as well as presenting herself modestly.
Mitt Romney went into the debate the clear front-runner. I thought he was charming and eloquent in his responses. Because he did not mess up or do anything to turn voters away, I think he is the “winner” of the debate. Romney was also not afraid to direct his responses at Obama. "He's failed at a time when the American people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing." This is something that I think will make him very popular with Republican voters. You could tell he was very passionate about everything he had to say, and he sometimes refused to be cut off in the middle of a response. While none of the other candidates outshined Romney, some deserve mention. Gingrich stood out when he made his statement about immigration. His attack on the question of total amnesty versus total deportation as dishonest and unreasonable was a memorable highlight of the debate. This was impressive, as he came into the debate with a troubled campaign. I don’t think it’s fair to call out any of the candidates for rambling on or trying to elaborate, John Caine was interrupting THE WHOLE TIME and really limited what the candidates were trying to say.
RE: Cassie
Romney's outlook on religious tolerance in America is one that really struck me as something that is going to attract the attention of a large number of voters. This is an important part of the foundation of our country that American citizens really need to bring their focus back to and Romney may be just the guy to do that. In my opinion, Romney is one of the strongest candidates, along with Bachmann as I have expressed previously.
AJ Solomon- After reviewing the Republican Debate, I sincerely believe that Mitt Romney captured the viewing audience with his forward and direct responses to the questions posed. Romney projected a lot of honestly, sincerity, and integrity in his voice, diction, posture and composure. He answered all of the questions, where many of the candidates avoided the question and instead put forth other ideas on the topic at hand. Romney seemed to have a good grasp of the issues, especially surrounding the Obama Administration's "Obamacare" program. Romney put forth a state administered healthcare program that allowed for more flexibility and control by a state's legislature as well as the state's constituency. Romney also possessed tremendous composure when one of the other candidates attacked his plan. Mitt Romney's answers to other questions were just as direct and forthcoming as his response to the current healthcare dilemma. Romney also did not rely on raw emotion in his responses. Instead, he effectively delivered a well thought out plan that seemed, on the surface, to make sense. I will certainly be listening more closely to his responses in the forthcoming debates. Overall, out of all the candidates I listened to, Romney seemed to rise to the top of this group of Republicans.
The candidates in the Republican debate used a fair amount of circular reasoning, and selective hearing to questions with multiple issues, choosing instead to discuss problems or topics that do not address the question at hand, such as Tim Pawlenty’s harping on President Obama’s failures in “Obamacare” strategies. Also, at some point each candidate announced some sort of promise or assertion of their agendas and the Republicans winning the presidential election, often sounding rather brash and self-interested – with no finesse or elegance in their abrupt statements.
That being said, Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney seemed to be the most put together, and generally on-topic, and had several points to make on each question, with more polish than Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney, when speaking about the auto industry bailout, was well-read on the issue, and spoke with poise and a directness that projected sincerity, and several times refused to be cut off in his responses; which while somewhat impertinent, was a show of his passion about the topics. Romney also drew the more vocal response from the audience, out of the two; more charismatic, with a confidence and slightly more eloquent, smooth delivery of points, when compared to Bachmann, whose speech was a bit more abrupt, although she did have good eye contact with the audience, and had a sense of humor- she seemed more sincere than some of the others.
In “waiting for Superman”, as the Republican candidates are not that exciting, it would seem the debate does not prove any of them to be truly inspiring, but the “winner” of the debate, I think, would be Mitt Romney, merely for a more at-ease appearance in the debate, confidence, eloquence, and the audience response.
Re: courtney newcombe
I agree, Mitt Romney seemed to strike a balance in forwardness and eloquence, to keep favorability with the voters and not appear obnoxious, as Pawlenty and Cain did in several instances, with either interruptions or off-topic criticisms. Herman Cain in particular, seemed to have problems with letting the others speak without interruption, as you said.
After watching the Republican debate I had found that none of the candidates had impressed me. I find it hard to find a definite “winner” within this group. The only “winner” I see from a republican point of view would be Michele Bachmann due to her overall performance throughout the debate. The use of hand gestures had definitely helped her to convey her point to the audience, even if she over did it at times. She spoke clearly and with confidence whenever she was called to answer a question. During the question involving how the influence of the tea party will play a role within the candidate’s presidency she explained that it would take all the different factions within the Republican Party to build up a solid administration. The way she presented herself thorough her eye contact, which she made sure to look to every aspect of the audience, had truly showed her concern to send her point to every kind of person not just a focused group. Through her hand gestures and constant audience interaction she had the eyes and ears of the audience delivering to her many roars of applause. With this she had captured far more attention to be nominated. I truly believed that the only candidate that I had seen to make any head way within the matters asked within the debate was Newt Gingrich. He was far more controlled then Bachmann, which didn’t win him as much as it should, but what truly stood out was that he was the most realistic. Due to his experience as a former house speaker he understood that the whole system needed to be reorganized in favor of republican views not just the replacement of the president. This single point stuck to me where as all the other candidates only attacked Obama as the only problem. In conclusion all the candidates within this debate had attacked Obama and his “Obama care” and giving little if anything of proof that they could do a better job, using their attacks to try to drive up their popularity.
My Breakdown
In what would be compared to “opening statements”, four of the candidates remained rather neutral. Three that stood out to me were Gingrich, Romney, and Paul. Gingrich was unconventional next to the rest of the candidates; he didn’t say much of himself, but jumped straight to attacking Obama ( -1 pt). Romney captivated the audience (their applause conveyed it) by starting with a small joke, but resuming his seriousness ( +1 pt). Paul was very subtle, but brought a very good point that seemed to please the audience, that he wished to “defend the Constitution” ( +1 pt).
ECONOMY: Cain’s response to the question regarding the economy was nonsensical ( -1). Santorum’s, Pawlenty’s, Gingrich’s, and Romney’s responses completely avoided the questions asked of them ( -1). First line, Paul cracks a joke, get’s fantastic audience reaction (+1). He then goes on to answer the question asked of him, and answer one that the other candidates avoided (+1).
HEALTHCARE: Bachmann had a fantastic opening to respond to this topic. She flat out stated that she would repeal ObamaCare no matter what (+1). Romney also hit the nail on the head pointing out the key differences in his plan and Obama’s (+1). Pawlenty choked on explaining “ObamneyCare” (-1). Romney answered superbly regarding ObamaCare and it’s similarity to Romney’s Massachusetts plan (+1).
MANUFACTURING JOBS: Paul was perfectly on topic here, laying out a well explained plan for his solution (+1)
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE: Again, Paul was very assertive and thorough. He answered the question fully, and with a great reaction from the crowd (+1).
AUTO BAILOUT: Romney answers perfectly. He actually gives an answer to the question, and provides his solution (+1).
DISASTER RELIEF: Romney answers the question well, as well as providing a solution again (+1).
MEDICARE: Paul comes ready with statistics and a solution and completely answers the question (+1)
DEBT CEILING: Romney answers the question well, AGAIN (+1). Bachmann follows in his shoes, and is prepared with facts regarding Obama’s previous views (+1). GAY MARRIAGE: Bachmann is too wishy-washy here. Does she want an amendment or not? (-1). Paul is thorough, he states that government should back out (+1).
ABORTION: Bachmann says she’s 100% pro-life. She goes on about how rape does not effect that and that she herself has taken in 23 foster children (something she stated half a dozen times). Doesn’t she realize that abortion rights would allow her to provide for other children? If there are hypothetically 1000 kids in need of foster care in any given area surrounding Bachmann, and she takes in 23, that is 2.3%. If there are only 750 kids in need of foster care in the same area, and she takes in 23, that is 3.1%. That has so much more of an effect on the society (-1).
AFGHANISTAN: Romney and Paul both had great answers, though differing, to the questions asked of them (+1).
Overall, I have Representative Ron Paul winning the debate. He held it together, has stayed consistent from his last run at the presidency. He is very clear and thorough with what he believes and what he thinks should be done. He's got it together, and is a good debater. He as well proved to be a crowd favorite. He received decent applause with nearly every statement/answer. On my rating, he received the highest score, a 7.
Romney did extremely well, himself receiving a 6.
Bachmann started well, but later brought her self down to overall neutrality.
The other 4 candidates ended in the negative.
That comprises my two cents.
After watching the debate, one of the candidates which is Michele Bachmann had impressed me the most. Each candidate had their own speech and they provided information about themselves. Overall, Michele Bachmann had answered all the questions directly. Her body language and eye contact with everyone was one of the strongest thing that impressed me. As a president, she has everything that she needs. She can speak directly to the point and this is one of the most important thing that a president should do. In other hand,she is a congresswoman. I cant say that she knows how everything works, but a congresswoman should at least know a little background of it. With all these, i believe that Michele Bachmann will be the winner of the election.
I have to say that I can't point out a clear winner. To many of the hopefuls circumnavigated most of the questions presented to them, and those they did answer often begged the question. However, I think that two candidates managed to stand out amongst the rest: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
Romney was extremely eloquent with his answers. He did not, at any point, attack his Republican colleagues (as far as I noticed), but he did not hesitate in bashing Obama. This, I think, will be a strong rallying point with Republicans. Romney also seemed to know what he was talking about when he answered, where other politicians danced around the questions asked of them.
Ron Paul was extremely straightforward in his answers, and his answers weren't far-fetched or convoluted as the answers of other individuals. He, like Rmney, carried a confidence in him that was ultimately refreshing.
With that said, I think the title of "winner" would have to go to the both Romney and Paul.
RE Dustin:
I had missed the part on abortion, but I think your reasoning on Bachmann's position is interesting. I'm not saying I'm pro-abortion, but it is something to think about....
RE TRobinson:
I'm so glad you brought up the "religious topic" (I forgot to do that in my post) and Romney's stance on it. I agree wholeheartedly that this will be a draw to voters. However, I don't think Bachmann was as strong as Romney or Paul. She didn't give straightforward answers for some topics, including gay marriage. Romney and Paul answered all their questions with succint, well-thought answers.
Re: Dustin
You missed the part about religion and marriage, which I believe played strongly in favor for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann and against Ron Paul. Ron Paul said government interferes too much in these matters and would not give his opinion on the subject, while the others were very clear in showing their beliefs.
Re: Bill
I agree with your comments on Mitt Romney, but I believe Ron Paul did not have the confidence that you said he had. He rambled and elaborated on points when he did not need to, which shows that he was not confident in being able to answer the questions without explaining reasons for his answer. If he was confident in his answers, he would be able to answer the questions with more composure. He also paused and said "um" quite frequently.
Re: Kevin I understand where you think that Newt Gingrich was the best candidate, but he did flip on the Libya issue. Also from what I can remember he just didn't stand out to me. He was the one candidate at the end were I had to ask myself, "Wait who is that again?" His answers were good, but he never seemed to thoroughly explain and have a strong backing for his answers.
K.Nguyen:
At first, it was difficult to decide who would be the “winner” of the candidate debate, but I think that Bachmann was the overall “winner”. Her gestures and her powerful analyzing words helped her throughout her debate. Whenever she spoke, she had energy and knew what she wanted to say and her actions gestured that she knew that she could keep America on track. As a parent and fostering over 23 children she is well organized and is determined what she can do for the country when they discuss about the Wall Street 2007-2008, she stated that she had introduce a repeal bill to repeal the Dodd-Fran (Dobb-Frank would lead to more job loss than creation). During the voter question on the Obamacare, Bachmann stated that she promised that she would do anything to repeal the Obamacare, she supports this by stating the fact that the Obamacare will kill over eight hundred thousand jobs and she cares about the seniors when they took away a half trillion dollars to pay for the younger care. She takes an approach towards what could balance the economy and the budgets to get America back to the better days. When she discusses the topics, she gives strong gestures and emphasize in her voice as she motivates her decisions and actions. Bachmann does not change her position discusses with Santorum and Cain on the tea party influences, she sees inside the Tea Party members as disaffected democratic; libertarians and Republicans these people want to revive the economy, she talks about the three legged stool and she is proud of what she says. She knows how to move the audience towards her as she compares the president’s “failing report card” to the Republican’s “excelling report card”. Bachmann also had seen through the eyes of a tax attorney, a chairman in the Tea Party; she knows what she had gone through and has had experiences. When they were talking about job manufacturing, she was determined to rid of the EPA. She states “principal over her party” during the auto industry bailout before the space shuttle debate for Gingrich. In the debt ceiling discussion between her and Romney she says that she voted against the raising debt ceiling and she states, “just dealing with the issue of raising the debt ceiling is a failure to leadership” that was from Obama as a senator. She points out that under his leadership Obama that he has increased the federal debt up to 35%. So she works out a solution by stating how to reduce it and also using spending cuts. One of the most powerful parts that I think won her moreover was the abortion debate. In this debate, she keeps her position and doesn’t change sides, she is pro-life 100% and she believes that human life was given by God and not by the government. She stands for live and that no one should take away an innocent life. She thinks that there is dignity from birth to death. She states in her information from the Declaration of the Independence that God has given us life “we are endowed by our Creator”. Lastly, she states in the Libya question that there is no reason why America should be there that America has no interest and we as the people in America should not be leading from behind. We weren’t even sure who the rebel forces are. During the overall debates, she gives both eye contact to the audience, to the speakers, and the host with strong gestures and her powerful voice. Through her experiences she also uses facts in support of views and ideas. Bachmann has so much to say and do to make America growing again.
Re: N5Paulet
Romney did have a calm expression most of the time, and answered the questions very well, but when Pawlenty attacked his "Obamneycare" you could see the sweat dripping from his face. While he did keep his composure, he did start to stumble a bit and move around a little more until the topic changed.
Mollie-
The two long ID names are Mollie Kearney's. My computer is being extremely uncooperative.
@Dustin
I would like to point out on your abortion discussion. Bachmann supports pro-life. But here's the thing, people need to take responsibility in their actions. I mean think about it, she already is fostering 23 children and caring for others, other than herself. Does it really matter about percentage? At least she is saving innocent lives and giving and caring. There is also a possibility that if she is president and abortion is not allow, she could create aids to the children in the fostering homes. It's the little things that we do to make an impact. With her taking care of that many children. That's a big step already.
RE Kevin:
I do think that Gingrich's point about the necessity of gaining Congress seats was a very good one. This was one thing that did bring him up a bit in my opinion. He is most definitely well educated with the system. But, if we were to only choose on only experience in the system, then Pawlenty could be just as good as anyone else, and as he hasn't been mentioned as standing out here, no one seems to think that he would be the best. And, just because he said that about Congress, Gingrich still bashed Obama. His opening line was that they need a President to end the Obama depression.
I also believe that Romney did a significant job in responding to ObamaCare. He stated how his own plan was similar to ObamaCare, but gave the 4 specific things that made his plan better and why.
RE Kathy, and all other Bachmann supporters.
I'm really trying to just stay logical and subjective. For every reason given here that declares Bachmann the winner, Romney should've won.
Romney was every bit as prepared as she was, and he wasn't so dang wishy-washy.
On abortion, you say that percent doesn't matter. What if it's 50% to a 100%? Is that irrelevant?
And here to Taylor, how did her view on marriage count for her? She said she wouldn't impose her idea on state laws, but supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? That doesn't make sense!
Romney is completely devoted to a Constitutional amendment.
Ron Paul is solid on his solution as well (I re-watched earlier and I did notice the "Uhm"s, however I found them irrelevant as the crowd cheered him greatly). He was stuck to his idea that the government should get out. Now, be completely objective about it. No matter what you believe about same sex marriage, would you rather have a president with a solid plan? Or one without a plan?
And here is another good point about Bachmann that Bill Maher brought up on Tuesday's AC360. Are we just comparing her Sarah Palin? Because, honestly, Bachmann sounds like a rocket scientist next to Palin. Romney is much more put together than Bachmann.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Re: Dustin
Her position on marriage makes complete sense. She means that as a president, it is not the president's place to go around changing state laws. Her support of a constitutional amendment is logical because states must ratify the amendment. For the constitutional amendment to be ratified, the states would have to overturn their law, which is different from her changing state laws.
After watching segments of the debate and reading several recaps of it from various news outlets, I personally feel that I must award the trophy to Michelle Bachmann as overall winner, but to Mitt Romney as the most widely acceptable of all the candidates.
They both stole the spotlight hands down, yes, and captivated the nation with their rhetoric and plans for the future, but ultimately the debate winner is determined by how well he or she is recieved by the audience. As stated, this would be Bachmann. Bachmann, despite her rather unknown status in many parts of the nation, dominated the questioning session. Every question was answered directly and without reproach, and while some have incorrectly accused her of stalling and rambling off topic (purposely or not), she still managed to maintain a level of sincerity to her responses. This much at least awards her major points in my book. Voters want the straight answer and not the typical runaround, which is what I liked about Bachmann's style.
Additionally, her general demeanor during the session made it obvious she felt herself to be in charge. Confidence is everything in politics, and Bachmann showed no fear when voicing her stances on the major issues. She took the high road, and instead of trying to cover her own rear whilst bashing the rears of others, she focused entirely on the matters at hand. In her usual way, she refused to back down. She took command, laid out her plans, and told everybody else where their places were. The toher candidates were simply shined out and blended in which the background.
It is also no small feat to rally an otherwise uninterested audience into a fervor the way she did. Regardless of her recognition in some of the far-flung locations in American, the debate made it obvious she is widely popular.
However, when it comes to a "Superman Candidate," I must agree with my friends on here that one simply does not exist yet. No one candidate in particular has stood out as of yet, and I'm beginning to doubt if one ever will. In fact, I feel the era of the "Superman Candidate" is over. Unlike the past one hundred years, today's 21st Century America is dominated by so many rival political and ethnic factions that finding any one candidate to garner unanimous party support is next to impossible. Just like the Federal Government, modern party politics is all about compromise and finding the best candidate to suit the current temperment of voters. The old method of a "one-size-fits-all" approach of both parties in the Post World War II era is obselete, but is still clung to like a punctured life-preserver.
In this sense, I would pin Mitt Romney as the ultimate winner of the Republican Candidacy. His message is more or less universal for the largest percentage of the GOP, most likely meaning a large payout in votes come the primary. Focusing on history, he has also ranked consistently in the Top 3 for the GOP Candidacy since 2000... and was just a finger away from taking on Obama in the 2008 Election. He also has the money and support to run a grueling campaign as well. But above all, Mitt Romney possesses the strongest attribute all the other candidates lack... the nationwide recognition required to survive a Presidental Campaign, as well as the charisma to back everything up.
Unfortunately for Bachmann, she still has a way to go before she becomes a prominent member of the GOP. Romney has not only experience on her, but also the national recognition required to run for President. I've asked around, and as far as customers at Denny's go, she's still just another backwater Representative from Minnesota.
Bachmann definiately won the debate, that's for sure, but I'm not about to jump on the bandwagon quite yet. I still have yet to be impressed by any of the candidates in particular, but one ahs to realize that the debate was but one battle in a rapidly developing war for the GOP Candidacy. I've made my prediction, but I'd really like to see how things develop further down the road.
RE Taylor:
Elaborating on points is not a bad thing. Often, it shows foresight and intelligent thinking on matters.
Just my thought...
RE Dustin:
I'm a little confused on your stance. In your initial post, you said Ron Paul had the highest score for the debate, with Romney in second. In one of your rebuttles, you mentioned that "Romney should have won", and you capitalized on what Romney did well, and then you added as an afterthought that Paul did a "solid" job.
Am I missing something?
Re:Mollie
True, Romney did stumble a bit after Pawlenty's attack on Obamneycare, but overall he was one of the more composed candidates. During the camera pans, where you could see everyone on stage, some of the others were very fidgety, and did not look comfortable, whereas Romney, and Bachmann, appeared more still, and not shifting about as much as Pawlenty or Cain.
RE Bill:
Yes, I understand what you mean and why you are confused. I stand by my statement that Paul won. What I'm saying is that after the reasons given by many for Bachmann winning, they should consider Romney the winner. I believe that Paul's style was much different than those two, and much better. I just feel that Romney and Bachmann were comparable with their own styles, and Romney defeated her.
As you would agree (you thought Paul did a good job as well) it takes a deeper view of Paul's statements to find him winning the debate. I believe that he was on a whole different playing field than the other debators. I would find Romney as sort of the "surface" winner. After my second viewing of the entire debate, and paying close attention to what the candidates said as opposed to how they said it, then Paul completely kicked butt.
Does that make sense? I could explain further if it's necessary.
RE Dustin:
Thank you for clarifying; it makes complete sense.
RE Taylor and Dustin:
I also want to agree with Dustin on his statement about Ron's "Ums" in an earlier post. Fluency of speech is not always a requirement for the presidency and does not mean one would be a good leader (our lesson in rhetoric shows that), so I agree that arguments based on that aspect alone are irrelevant.
Re Bill and Dustin
I agree that "um" is not critical in this argument, but to the American general populus it comes across as if he does not know what he wishes to say. Bill, elaboration can be good but when one elaborates too much, it can be as if they are trying to prove something already proven, which can confuse people and force the speaker to stumble more. Ron Paul is as strong a candidate as Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney, but one of his biggest weaknesses is his public speaking.
RE: Mollie
I agree that Bachmann's body language and stage presence were impressive. In this way, she could definitely be considered a winner. However, I don't think she answered all of the questions thoroughly. For example, she seemed to go off track a bit when discussing abortion. The presentation was great, but the content was lacking a bit I think!
RE: Aj
I totally agree with you! I also felt Romney did the best job answering the questions asked. Don't get me wrong, the other candidates had some good things to say about each of the topics discussed, but Romney's answers were more direct. His ideas made sense to me, but they were not oversimplified approaches either.
RE:Mollie K
I agree that Bachmann was the winner of this debate. She did present herself in a fashion that catered to the constituents. I disagree on the part of hand gestures, i feel she over used it at times. Her overzealous behavior is what won her the debate. In the end i feel that all the canadates were to focus on attacking Obama. The only canadate that had a realistic idea was Gingrich, even if he is unlikely canadate.
Re: Taylor, Bill, Dustin et al
I would agree that fluency in speech is not a deciding factor when it comes to policy, but it is definiately a determining factor when it comes to candidates.
We may recall that there was a widespread, albeit false conception in regard to former President Bush's own intelligence because of his rather relaxed sematic control over language. By no means was the guy unintelligent. He graduated from a prestigious Ivy League University. Because of the way he spoke however, many of America believed he was not as smart as he could have been. His objective may have been strong, but too many "um's" make the audience question the confidence of the person giving them.
Language, even if the central point is obvious, still holds considerable sway over how the mass public regards a figure of interest.
RE Ryne:
If they questioned their confidence in Bush, how come they kept him in for two terms?
Re Bill, Ryne, and Dustin
Thank you Ryne! That was part of what I was trying to say. Bill, Bush was president for two terms because the American people, as a whole, were not unhappy with him until his second term. Also, people then believed he responded well to 9/11. The jokes about his fluency of speech and intelligence are ways that people expressed their unhappiness with him during his second term.
RE Fluency of speech:
Did you guys watch the whole debate? Ron Paul did that one time! I believe that he had a good excuse for it as well, seeing as he was on a very touchy subject. He was good to be careful with his words. You guys think that the populace will look down upon his "uhm"s? Did you hear the crowd cheer after he said what he did, "uhm"s included? They seemed pleased with him nonetheless.
Mollie K
Re: Ryne
I definately see where you are coming from about Romney having the expierence over Bachmann, but you also have to look at the president we last elected. Barack Obama didn't exactly have the highest resume out of the candidates. If I remember correctly he voted "not present" in the majority of the Senate votes. Nonetheless in these days obviously expierence isn't the top priority in elections.
Re: Taylor and Bill
Kinda what she said Bill. Bush's lack of speech fluency was merely pointed out as an example of the lack of voter confidence in him. His first term he was quite successful, especially with how he handled 9-11 and domestic policy, but people only started to notice his lack of fluency when they began to doubt his abilities as President.
Now that we're getting into the topic of semantics, there is a difference between the a pause "um" and an unconfident, I need to make stuff up "um." The average voter unfortuntely, cannot detect the difference unless they are very good at listening between the lines.
For those who know what to look for, however, facial expression and eye movement can reveal the truth behind the words. Eyes looking up and away from the hand you write with indicate lying, looking down and away indicates half-truth or deception, while looking up in the direction of the hand you write with indicates deep thought or contemplation. Additionally, rapid movement of the eyes from the on-hand side to the off-hand side indicates a lack of confidence.
Knowing this, watch the debate in sections like I did, but only pay attention to the eyes and face. You'll see what I mean.
While each and every candidate had their fair share of half-truths, what I noticed was that Bachmann was the most sincere out of all of them. Coupled with the reactions from the crowd, I believe they realized the same thing. Romney and Paul debated in a similar manner, much of which was sincere in its intent but not as widely accepted by the audience.
While the total "ums" do not determine a winner, they can do a lot to reveal whether or not the candidate is truly confident in what that stand for.
Re: Dustin
Ron Paul did do a good job, I'm not doubting that. I can see what you mean in regards to his performance. I just don't see him as the winner though, seeing as he appeared to be more of the vanilla candidate when it came to this particular outing. I like Paul, I'll say it flat. His plan to tackle the debt and stop spending completely is exactly what we need. The reason why I don't peg him as winning though, is because he just didn't seem to connect as well with the audience as Romney and Bachmann did. Perhaps it could be because Paul's campaign isn't quite rolling yet, or maybe he isn't that in tune with his constituents in New Hampshire as he is in Texas.
Re: Mollie
You make a valid point. Experience however, isn't summed up in terms of votes. Experience comes with time, and so long as Obama was there, he was able to see how things worked and understood the system. Just because he abstained from a vote didn't mean he had no understanding of its potential impact on the public.
With Romney however, I meant campaign experience and not job experience. Obama, like Romney, had been involved in several candidate primaries up until the 2008 Election, and each time learned valuable lessons on the proper courses of action. Bachmann is entirely new to the game, and likewise still has to learn first hand the in's and out's of the Primaries like her fellow candidates did during their previous outtings. She is not as well-versed as Romney is, or perhaps Paul, which is why I don't see her leading the pack. Then again though, I could be wrong.
RE Ryne:
You said it yourself: "people only started to notice his lack of fluency when they began to doubt his abilities as President." The doubt of abilities came first, according to you, followed by the notice of lack of fluency. If lack of fluency was so important as a determining factor for candidates, why wasn't it pointed out in Bush's first term (because he didn't speak very goodly then)? :) Nevertheless, I can see what you're saying in this matter. Your "analysis" on the body language in your most recent post was also good; it helped explain your point. Thank you for that.
RE Taylor:
I will not be so arrogant that I refuse to listen to good, valid points. You said that people made fun of Bush's speech skills in order to show their dissatisfaction during his second term. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly and think that it is a brilliant thought. Please consider, though, that the Bush example is quite radical in nature; he constantly messed up grammar (including adding the extra "u" in nuclear), making a fool of himself in the process. This was present in both terms. Ron Paul just said a few "ums". A lot less embarrassing/cringe-worthy....
My only point (not trying to create a debate about it) was that public speaking was not considered first in his campaign. Had it been, Bush probably would not have had his second term. His lack of popularity was considered first, which prompted the public to very picky (to the point of being very anal) about his lack of English skills. This was the basis for my assertion that lack of fluency did not hamper one's chances in an election with the general public.
RE: AJ
I thought that Romney was a lot of things but not a crowd pleaser. He had his own share of avoiding questions as well as pitching his own ideas. On top of that he did have many points in "Obamney care"
but to be pesident you must have a lot more strong points then just falling back onto "Obamney care." To become president you need to be able to deal with issues such as foreign affairs, economy, national security, i feel he spent to much time on the health care issue. Overall i feel he tried to sell the Republican party on Healthcare alone.
RE Bill:
You pretty much nailed it. I think the populace became nitpicky just like they are now with Obama. Nobody looks for the good in people.
RE Kevin:
Romney wasn't trying to center his argument on healthcare. And he most certainly wasn't fond of the "ObamneyCare" term, thoroughly explaining how his Massachusetts health plan differed from ObamaCare. Also, more than once, Romney stated that they should focus the topic of the debate to economics in general.
Re: Mollie K
Yes, i believe that Michele Bachmann will be the winner too because she answered each questions thoroughly and and made eye contact with people. For the body language,i think she used a little too much which annoyed me/other people.She should avoid using it too often.Other than that,i think she has the biggest chance to win!
Re:N5.Paulat
I agreed,they should not point out anyone's failure during the debate. Everyone has their own thoughts and reasons, and especially for them, they should not point it out at all. I also agreed that Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney seemed to be the most put together, and generally on-topic since they did not give promises and answered their questions within the topic.
Ugh, Saturday, and all the good conversation dies :'(
Post a Comment