After the Presidential debate two days ago, both sides are left with some new questions. Just who won the debate? Can it even be called one, as there are other runners from other parties that weren't invited? What went wrong, where, and for who? According to this Washington Post article Romney was the obvious winner--and while I do agree there to an extent, he goes beyond the mere stating of who won. He asserts that President Obama failed because he sees himself as a king, and that he has been avoiding people questioning for the past four years. His demographic is obviously Republican's, specifically the GOP, and possibly wanting to sway the few independents that still don't know who they want to vote for--if they want to vote at all. The author goes on to support his statement by stating the he hasn't held a press conference at the White House since March--which is hard to do when campaigning to be reelected.
The writers tone is very combative. He comes out swinging right out of the gate, and sets people who are Obama supporters away from his article, or those independents who are tired of the mudslinging and the vitriol that has been coming from both sides. Though I do agree that Romney did do a better job at the debate, that isn't because of the reasons the writer is stating-that Obama looking down, seeming reserved, and not matching Romney's energy. He fails to address the many lies that Romney told during the debate, that the presidential candidate would cut funding to PBS, and the tape released a few weeks back saying that the candidate wasn't concerned with nearly half of the United States population. He even goes on to assume what the President was thinking, saying "a sense that it was beneath him". If this was a piece trying to inform or sway people, as it was obviously attempting, it failed to do so spectacularly.
No comments:
Post a Comment