|
I have a hard time with people only talking about "who won" when we're talking about a debate which is to show your positions and say what you would do and answer some questions. It seems such a dull way to think of it that doesn't really help someone vote. And if someone is voting based on debate wins, sheesh.
I didn't hear too much hard data in the debate. I did think it was pretty telling that Romney turned away from the plans he's been campaigning on for reasons that seemed to be because the wind had shifted direction. What is his firm stance on anything besides the same rhetoric we've heard for four years? He said he had a specific plan and then said he didn't need a plan but rather he would set a tone and lay out a framework for what he wanted to accomplish. Well wtf. And he cited Reagan for that? Reagan who raised taxes 11 times while in office? How are you going to stop borrowing money and keep spending up and give more tax breaks and pave the streets with gold without increasing revenue? It's just so much fluff.
So for the tiny amount that it's worth, Romney was more aggressive so people will say he won the debate, which doesn't require winning to get votes, but is more like earning a cookie.
I thought they were both pretty lame and missed chances to make themselves more clear which is a loss for them both, and for us.
__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
|