Presidential Debate #1
Posted in Politics by George
Here’s my question: What % of rhetoric of “change v. experience” will we hear as opposed to real cost-benefit issue debate? I predict 95% change v. experience rhetoric, 5% issues. Although that could be different, considering the bailout plan is on everyone’s minds. Hopefully I can catch some of the debate… I have a big legal writing project due tomorrow.
I also predict that Obama has been itching to debate McCain for a while now. Whether one or the other is a better candidate for president, there is no question that Obama is the better orator. I would be surprised if anyone dubbed McCain the “winner” of a debate with Obama… he’s going to need to win through other means if he will win…
October 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
There was quite a bit of bashing of the other’s credentials during the debate, but I think that there was some substance that was useful. They were able to articulate their differences on policy in Iran, Iraq and their general philosophies about how to grow the economy. Obama tried to tie McCain to Bush and McCain tried to make Obama look naive in his view of how the world works, but that’s to be expected. The whole “change vs. experience” debate has shifted. Now, it’s “change vs. reform” according to the candidates. McCain had to switch strategies.
They seemed to get stuck when it came to Iraq, though. Obama wanted to make McCain look bad for wanting to get into a stupid war that we had no business entering in the first place and McCain wanted to make Obama’s judgement look bad because he wasn’t in favor of the surge. I personally think that there’s no way to tell if the surge is what caused the ebb of violence in Iraq, or if it happened because of things that were happening before the surge even began. There are also a lot of people who would not say that we are much closer to being “victorious” in Iraq. I also think it’s stupid to say that it’s dishonoring the soldiers to say that if we get out of Iraq they will come home in disgrace and dishonor. Did you catch any of the debate? What are your thoughts?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It really doesn’t matter who the president is going to be; most policies that they are touting in their campaigns are going to be shot down by big bad Congress. H.W. Bush got his education initiatives crushed, Clinton never could do the health care reform he desired, and President Bush never got his privatization of social security effort approved that was his key issue of his 2000 campaign.
It’s all about how Congress feels.
I doubt any good “change” will happen.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I wholly agree that Congress holds a check against the President, but this is the design of the Constitution.
It is true that “the legislative vortex” enacts the policies and all the president can do is recommend them. It follows that the president is highly dependent upon Congress whenever he tries to get things done.
The second step is to realize that the president exerts the same kind of power on Congress. It is extremely hard to override a veto, or to override the popular force the president holds over the electorate.
The conclusion is that the two branches purposely impede each other to protect against the overpowering of the people by a single branch. This is the design of the Constitution - this why we have checks and balances. The Constitution is not a model of efficiency - it is protection against tyranny.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Unless, of course, the president *cough* ignores the Constitution and interprets it in a way that allows him to do almost anything he wants. After having President Bush in office, I’d have to disagree that the president doesn’t matter and that Congress will just shoot down their attempts at policy change. Congress does have a lot of clout in what happens, but I think it’s also makes a huge difference who the president ends up being.