 |
| The first of the three debates between Obama and Romney was held at Denver on 3 October 2012. |
I
watched the first full debate between two US Presidential candidates for the
upcoming US Presidential Election yesterday via youtube. A debate about
policies, leadership and new, collective ideas between the current President,
The Democratic Party representative-Barack Obama and former Massachusetts
governor, The Republican Party candidate-Mitt Romney. They will be debating
again on October 16 at New York and October 22 at Florida. There’s another debate between their running
mates which is the vice-presidency debate on October 11, between Joe Biden
(Current Vice President, Democratic candidate) and Paul Ryan (Congressman,
Republican candidate).
First
and foremost, I would like to say as a non-US citizens, I have no right to
comment on who’s policies or ideas is better or who is the better person to
lead US for the next 4 years. But, to be honest, I thought Romney was the one
who performed better in this debate. Obama just looked like he’s a bit confused
throughout the debate. Some points he mentioned are just not solid and
convinced enough. At times, he didn’t really properly answer the questions that
are raised by the moderator.
While
for Romney, he has clear points on how he is going to govern US but I’m not
quite sure whether Mitt Romney is able to execute his plans. For example, he
wants big major companies to create jobs for the Americans rather than taxing
these big companies like what Obama did. He wants to cut government spending
but he is going to maintaining the national defense spending (which is the
number 1 spending in US budget). I’m not quite sure how a balance is going to
achieve on these issue.
One
thing’s for sure, after the first debate, the race to White House will
definitely be more fierce and tight. There are still two more debates ahead for
these two men, a good performance in the upcoming debate will definitely
further strengthen their bid to be the next President or continue another one
more term.
The
debate between Obama and Romney is a great example for most countries in the
world, how an election should be run. A debate between the government and
opposition should always include in the election campaign. Rather than
suppressing media in barring them from publicize opposition’s news, running away
from the invitation of a debate like a headless chicken, a debate like this
will give a clearer view for the voters on each candidate’s policies, decision
making, ability of speaking and governing ideas and visions.
Each
candidate whether you are from the government or opposition is given a chance
in front of national television to disagree what your opponents has said, and
why your ideas are the best one. No one get additional time on the media which
I think is hardly achieved in politics across most countries in the world.
The
first debate was more about economic issues, which includes unemployment,
health care program, national debts and jobs creation. If a debate’s candidate
doesn’t bother to talk or focus the debate topic, what’s the meaning of the
debate going on? What’s the point when you don’t answer your opponent’s
questions about a specific topic? The answer is simple, there’s no need of a
debate! I think Obama and Romney both provide strong speech about the topics
that are raised by the moderator. Every voter wants a debate with useful facts
and figures, constructive ideas and visions and clearly both Obama and Romney
did that. Nobody wants a debate where the candidates talk something that is
totally unrelated to the topic or bragging about his great achievements about
something.
Another
good point about the debate is that no one in the crowd is allowed to make any
noise, neither clapping hands nor jeering any of them throughout the debate. An
exception was allowed when the candidates walk on to the stage, as the crowd
gave their strongest applause to the candidates. As the moderator said, “The
attention should be on the two candidates who are going to debate”. The
crowd was excellent throughout the debate without interrupting the debate. A
good example for the world showcasing that political debates, talks or speeches
can be done in a civilize manner. Everybody wants to know more about the
candidate. Not shouting or jeering from the spectators, asking all kinds of
silly and useless questions in front of both candidates.
There
are definitely lots of disagreements between two candidates from two different
parties with two different approaches and directions. We see candidates from
two parties can actually agree one another’s idea or vision. For example, Obama
and Romney both agreed that they have the same vision in social security. They
both agree that business companies have to do to their part in making US
Education even better. Mostly in most countries, we will see a mocking of their
opponent’s story and trying all sorts of magic to twist and turn into their own
stories. I think politics should move into a more advanced manner just as what
technologies have done today where oppositions are allowed to agree on
government policies and government are allowed to take opposition’s advice.
It
might be a debate for the Americans to decide who is going to be their next
president. But, it certainly set a good example to the world, why we need a
debate between two parties and how politics can be done in a mature way. A good
example set for most countries across the world, a lesson to be learned by many
politicians.
By,
Zhe Xu
06/10/2012
Comments
Post a Comment