Third Presidential Debate

The third presidential debate was definitely won by President Barack Obama. This debate was extremely important in the race to the White House because it was the final time both candidates would have a national stage to debate the foreign policy differences they had. I felt that the candidates used this as an opportunity to show the different leadership styles they believed to be effective. Obama wanted to show the public that he had been a very successful leader of the military, whereas Romney tried to convince the public that Obama had not been as successful at the title of Commander in Chief as he was making everyone believe. Obama presented his information more forcefully than Romney did, and I believe that him actually having experience dealing with foreign policy was the edge he needed to boost his confidence going into this debate. From the very beginning of this debate, I believe that President Obama appeared much more together, organized, and composed than in the previous debates. Since he had actual examples of goals he had accomplished and could direct the public to actions he had taken when dealing with foreign policy, I believe this gave him confidence going into the debate that Romney lacked. That being said, I do not believe that Romney let Obama run him over throughout the debate. I believe he did show some strengths and helped to show America he would be a good leader; however, when facing Obama who had actually led I think the mountain was just too hard for him to overcome. Obama, in his attempt to be more agressive, took stabs at Romney for things he had said in the past and was now changing his stance on, like the fact that Romney was quoted as saying Russia was a bigger geopolitical threat to America than al Qaeda, but that now he had retracted to agree that al Qaeda was indeed a threat. In response, Romney called Obama out about the fact that attacking him was not going to solve any problems the country faced when dealing with foreign policy. I feel that the personalities of each candidate were more apparent during this debate because I feel that they targeted jabs at each other and were able to show the public their competitive sides, while still proving that they would both make strong, capable leaders of our nation's military forces and were both capable of making good decisions while dealing with our foreign policy.

Obama v. Romney

This blog post will provide a comparative analysis between Obama and Romney’s convention speeches. Obama’s speech was very uplifting: it was well spoken, included more logos-based arguments compared to Romney’s speech, and really encompassed the “Democrat spirit.” That is, it appealed to the varying demographics of the Democratic party, and also attracted on-the-fence voters. Further, it built an image of Obama as being very personable and as a man who holds the American dream dear. Though he did engage a good deal of pathos, he generally did so in a tactful way, such as appealing to the audience’s patriotic spirit. However, he did talk about his family, a pathos technique I do not like as it feels unprofessional. In contrast, Romney’s speech was a complete practice in pathos rhetoric. He spoke little of policy, and spent most of his speech talking about his family, the love of his wife, and his historical roots. The speech felt very mechanical and not sincere. As a result, Romney lacked the feeling of professionalism that one would expect from a would-be President. He ought to of included policy based arguments in his speech rather than just focusing on an appeal to emotion. Further, the way he handled his appearance made him seem downright slimy, with an awkward smile and an overly slick dress. All-in-all, Obama’s speech was far superior to that of Romney. Obama seemed more accessible, honest, and engaged far more logos based rhetoric compared to Romney. GRADE: Obama: B+ | Romney: C

Final Debate

Monday night’s bout between President Obama and Governor Romney would prove to be an important one for American voters. For some undecided voters foreign policy might not be an effort, but for most Americans it is. The big issue that came out of the debate on foreign policy was not necessarily different policies, but different views on leadership. The points that and attacks that each candidate brought forth were mostly centered on how the other handled certain situations. For the most part this is what foreign policy is for the president, handling situations. No candidate would say that they do not support better relations with allies, and no candidate would say that they wouldn’t take action against a national security threat. The difference is always how situations are handled. The only clear difference in policy would come from the view on troops and it appeared that for the most part the candidates agreed. At first view it seemed to me that President Obama was the winner of the debate. He was far more confident this debate than he was in his first debate and he was more composed he was in the second. Romney in all three debates has stayed consistent, but Obama is the only candidate who has previous foreign policy experience. Obama also seemed more ready to specifically attack Romney’s positions. Romney refrained from using as many specific attacks, while he did criticize the last four years as a whole. One thing that Romney did well was finding commonalities between he and the president. For many undecided voters who have heard a lot of mudslinging in the previous debates and on advertisements, hearing praise or agreement may have been a good thing. It also seemed that both candidates were trying hard to relate the debate over foreign policy to the economy. They compared the styles of leadership in foreign policy to here at home. One issue that was brought up was the disagreement over the auto industry. President Obama said that governor Romney would rather had the auto industry go broke. He said that we would be buying cars from China. This statement wasn’t entirely true according to The Washington Post fact checker, what Romney said was that he supported a managed bankruptcy. What this would do would force the auto industry to cut unnecessary spending. The connotation with bankruptcy is a negative one; however, according to Romney, in this case it would be a good thing. Romney also claimed that Obama lacked leadership by being silent about protests in the middle east; however, Obama wasn’t entirely silent only cautious at first. All in all the debate came down to which style of leadership would be best for the nation at home and abroad. 

3rd Debate: Leadership

The third debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney focused on where the candidates stand in regards to issues of foreign policy.  When examining the debate through a leadership lens, both candidates present similar positions in defining this term.   The candidates spent the majority of their time addressing technical problems, which refer to issues that occur within the here and now of society.  These types of issues are typically solved through policies, procedures, or other one-time changes that can create a quick fix.  I began to notice a problem with the candidates’ stances on leadership in a number of the issues addressed, such as Romney’s desire to have Muslims reject their own extremist attitudes, which are known as adaptive problems.  Adaptive problems often concern the values, morals, and ideologies of people and require much more than additional policies to produce change.  Both President Obama and Governor Romney depicted leadership as a term that develops through the use of organizing and mobilizing.  In some instances, this epitomizes what it means to be a leader and have referent power.  In other cases, such as those of adaptive problems, it will take much more than organizing and mobilizing to create new attitudes and produce desired results.  In my attempt to view the debate as objectively as possible, I started to notice a difference between the two candidates.  I felt that Governor Romney approached the debate with the notion of “controversy with civility”, while President Obama showed a desire for “conflict”.  These differing ideas may be due to the candidates’ performances in the two previous debates, but they still proved to be interesting.  Governor Romney showed controversy with civility by developing an understanding of differing perspectives in order to try to create a solution for the problems.  Although he stuck to his ideas and principles, Romney weighed these beliefs against the suggestions of President Obama without immediately rejecting their potential.  On the other hand, President Obama proved to be more aggressive through his focus on conflict.  With conflict, two opposing sides are competing without accounting for what or why the other perspective may have developed.  From a leadership perspective, effectiveness ultimately depends on an overall objective that is congruent to a person’s approach to the problem, as well as values.  Leadership philosophies also became evident through certain claims made by each candidate, as well as their attempts to refute those facts.  When Governor Romney referred to the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship that was established in Massachusetts, which provides student’s with a scholarship to a four-year public institution within the state, President Obama disputed this fact.  President Obama stated that the scholarship was founded by administration that preceded Governor Romney.  According to Glen Johnson, a blogger for Political Intelligence, the scholarship was a proposal by Governor Romney.  Another disagreement occurred when President Obama quoted Governor Romney as saying that we should still have troops in Iraq.  Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post states that Governor Romney did not technically say this, though it can be inferred from a speech that he gave at the Virginia Military Institute on October 8.  Both candidates present different facets of the truth, but the interpretation of these facts ultimately becomes the responsibility of the audience.  I think that both President Obama and Governor Romney helped themselves through their performances in the third and final debate.  For viewers who want a style of leadership that incorporates aspects of management and organization, I think that both candidates have a desire to solve problems through policy-making and legislation. 

Third and Final Presidential Debate

The third and final Presidential debate was the least interesting to me. The Presidential candidates topics about foreign affairs was a topic that I know the least about. Of course depending on where you look to find information some websites and news channels call it a draw and others said that Obama won. When I began fact checking I first watched a short video off of MSNBC. One of the first comments on this video is the horses and bayonets controversy, which I think is absurd to spend so much time “fact checking.” Romney began by stating that we do not have very little naval boats in our military and compared in to the year 1917. Obama responded by saying that Romney did not know very much about our military because we also have less horses and bayonets. DUH! The MSNBC fact checker said this is not comparable because there are more nuclear aircraft carries and submarine carriers used today. The Washington Post fact checkers calls this an apple and orange comparison. The next fact that MSNBC wanted to look at was the debate on the Presidents apology tour in the Middle East. It seems as if Obama came out as the more truthful debate on this topic. Romney said that Obama traveled to countries in the Middle East criticizing America. This is not true. The quotes that Romney tried to pull in to make his points were speeches the President gave in Europe and Latin America. I then moved to the Washington Post and their fact checkers. “I said if I got Bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot; you said we shouldn’t move heaven and earth to get one man” (Obama). Fact checkers for the Washington Post says that Obama has tried to make way to much out of this. Romney did make this statement in 2077, although Obama is choosing to ignore the rest of the interview. Obama is choosing which words he wants to bring out to make Romney look bad. Although I sway towards Republicans it seems as if any fact checker that I look at has more to say about Romney then Obama. Focusing on the debate itself I felt that it was more relaxed then the second debate. The topics that I focus on more were not discussed between the candidates so I spent little time paying close attention. In these debates there is much more logos used than ethos or pathos. Facts are given to those watching to try and sway the undecided voter and then these facts are either accepted or argued upon.

Last Presidential Debate

No one knows if it was because the debate came to foreign policy or if it was simply because it was the last debate before the elections, but both candidates were very vigorous and forceful Monday night during the third presidential debate. I found very exciting the way the debate evolved and very interesting the fact that both tried to contest the other’s arguments pointing some wrong statements and confusion which were said during the last few weeks.

Barack Obama was the first who attacked Mitt Romney concerning what he said before. He started by condemning Romney’s opinion about the Middle East: “I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia” and then continued to prove their main differences taking other sentences Romney said: “You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now”. First, facing these attacks, Romney appeared calm but determined to perturb the President thanks to what hasn’t been done yet. He also corrected Obama concerning what said that “attacking me is not an agenda”.

Moreover, we could definitely see that Obama tried to be very organized and underlined that Romney is not clear and sometimes very confused about what he put forward.

What put definitely the President as a leader in the subject of foreign policy are the long experience he has in it and the several actions he did all over the world during four years. We could easily see that Obama was much more comfortable than his contender and he succeed made him even more uncertain thanks to a lot of attacks and statements showing Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience.

Moreover, when it came to the role of America in the world, Mitt Romney could be easily criticized concerning his policy in Massachusetts and the President started by pointing his vision of “small businesses”. I found the discussion about what the Governor did in his State very well led.

On another side, I have to say that I really appreciated how the President developed his strategy and explained how he is going to use the budget in priority to make people save.

From my personal point of view, another interesting part of the debate was concerning China and I felt Obama really good using irony such as “You are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas, because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas”. I also think that he was good separating his and Romney’s values.

Finally, what I found the most efficient concerning Mitt Romney was that he tried to be sensitive, for example when he talked about Syria or when he admitted that Obama did a good job on taking out Osama Bin Laden. Moreover he kept talking about his youth: “I'm a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars”. Nevertheless, I definitely think that Obama did a better job for the last debate pointing up the flaws of Romney’s program and planning the next years with America in the center of the world.

To conclude, I think, again, that Obama used a lot more ethos and logos and thus used more his credibility as well as facts and measures than Romney, who used more pathos and still tried to convince his audience about his reliability. Indeed, throughout the debate, Obama brought figures and refuted Romney’s propositions thanks to that. Nevertheless, we can say that Romney found a certain credibility in his job and that he knows how the business field works. But we saw that sometimes, it has been in contradiction with what he actually wanted to prove.

The October 22, 2012 Presidential Debate focused on foreign policy. In contrast with the first Presidential debate, where it is generally agreed that Obama did a poor job, in this debate, Obama did an exemplary job, while Romney’s engagement was lackluster. Obama provided a highly factual narrative, while Romney relied more on rhetoric. Further, both candidates debated in a very professional manner, generally respecting each other and the moderator, which contrasts significantly with the previous debate where both candidates debated in a more passionate and arguably less-than-professional fashion. It seems likely that Obama had the advantage going into this debate. As President, he had significant foreign policy experience, and is keenly aware of current events. Romney on the other hand played little to no role in American foreign policy as a state governor. This explains why Obama relied more on logos based arguments, whereas Romney relied on pathos based arguments: Obama was more acutely aware of foreign policy issues, and could therefore speak to them, and Romney lacked that knowledge and experience, resulting in a need to appeal to ideology. In the debate, both candidates made a number of factual errors. Romney stated: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” The statement “it’s their route to the sea” is not factual. By simply examining a map, it is discovered that Iran is bordered by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Iran does not share a border with Syria, and is separated from it by the upper length of Iraq. Further, Iran has significant access to the Caspian Sea and to the Arabian Sea from their own coast. As such, Syria is not Iran’s “route to the sea.” During the debate, Obama stated that the public record clearly showed that Romney opposed federal assistance to troubled automakers. Obama’s statement was wrong – or at the least misleading. As an article by the Detroit News states (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121023/POLITICS01/210230441/1361/Auto-bailout-piques-voter-interest-as-Obama-uses-it-to-criticize-Romney), Romney was indeed in support of federal financing for troubled automakers, albeit on the condition that those automakers turn to bankruptcy first. Though Obama was clearly the winner in this debate, as he debated with the most passion and experience, both he and Romney spoke falsely at times. However, it is to be expected that when in a high-pressure environment such as a live televised debate, memories may not be in top form, with resulting lapses in accuracy.

10/22/12 debate

Elisabeth Peters

10/23/12

Third Presidential Debate

            Overall, I thought this was an excellent debate. I thought both President Obama and Governor Romney were given their fair share of time and allowed a rebuttal by the mediator when the other side said something he felt was a fallacy.  Both side focused heavily on ethos. Attempting to demonstrate that they were the “best man for the job” by highlighting their successes and mitigating their losses when brought up by his opponent. The way that each side worded the same subject matter differently in an effort to give a certain spin off of the truth to favor himself, I found particularly fascination. However, I think if I had been watching the debate as a typical American citizen I would not have picked up on these rhetorical techniques. Also, although the focus of this debate was on foreign policy, both candidates swung many of their answers to incorporate different aspects of their platform that they found to be more compelling and that it seemed they wanted to drive home one more time. Obama talked about his education policies and Romney tried to segway into talk of the economy. This was a good play on both sides, because talk of foreign policy may not resonate with all Americans, but education and unemployment both hit home daily.

            In addition to building themselves up in terms of credibility, both Obama and Romney clearly went in to this ready to attack the other side- whether passive aggressively or straight aggressively. One subject that Romney brought up, was that Obama had led an “apology tour,” which Obama refuted vehemently, saying that “this has been probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” According to FactCheck, Romney was wrong in his accusation, because Obama never apologized on this tour. Obama also attacked Romney about a previous statement the governor made in regards to Russia being America’s “biggest threat,” as opposed to Al Qaeda. The President’s lack of respect and agreement towards Romney’s statement were apparent, and because I found Romney’s words to also be ridiculous, I went to the fact checker. What I found was that the President’s facts were wrong- Romney said Russia was a “foe” and did not use the word “threat” in reference to Russia. He rather said that “nuclear Iran” is our biggest threat. Although I see the logical need to refute their opponent’s claims, having mistakes like these two here just aren’t demonstrative of good, persuasive public speaking. Also, such direct attacks on each other’s policies and credibility will certainly decrease his liking to the other side, thereby forgoing any chance to persuade someone over to vote for him instead. Such direct attacks don’t seem like a good idea to me to persuade voters who are on the other side to switch, but it might be necessary to appease voters who are already on your side…and to keep them there!

Presidential Foreign Policy Debate

Grace Clayton Political Communication Analysis of Foreign Policy Political Debate When watching last night’s political debate over foreign policy between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, I would have to say that I was less impressed than at the past two debate’s conclusions. Last debate, although quite sassy and a little “in your face” was much more entertaining to watch for someone who only recently became interested in politics. This one, the two candidates were seated, which immediately brought a different tone to the debate (not quite as abrasive right off the bat). In my opinion, it seemed that Governor Romney was having a bit of an issue with some of his foreign policy arguments. For instance, he did make the flub of saying that Iran was Syria’s link to the sea when they don’t even border each other or that we wouldn’t take oil from Syria (which we haven’t done in many, many years [Fact Checker seemed to think around the time of Reagan’s administration]). Governor Romney attempted to bring the argument back to how we need to build a strong home economy. Also that we have been lacking in strength as a foreign power because of our weak leadership and economy. However, President Obama since he has had much more experience on the foreign policy had a lot of effective things to say about foreign policy. His ethos was much stronger in my opinion, again because he has the experience under his belt. The main goal that he was hammering was that his goal is to “Keep America Safe.” He also had an extremely effective pathos appeal during the debate speaking about the story of the little girl name Peyton who was four years old when her father died on 9/11 in one of the twin towers. The fact that Obama was able to take out Osama Bin Laden in his presidency invariably makes him extremely popular to most all Americans who were alive on the day of September 11, 2001 and experienced the tragedy. After Osama was taken out, Peyton was able to feel peace about her father’s death. As a viewer, the thing that was the most frustrating, and it is probably like this in all presidential debates, was that each candidate seems to attack the other on incomplete arguments. For instance, they will take a part of wha the other candidate said in one of their speeches as their official stance and disregard the next paragraph that explains it further. Said more simply, it seems that each candidate takes the other’s words out of context way too often. These are the things that I checked in Fact Checker. The phrase that Romney took out of context was Obama’s “Apology Tour.” Now, Romney says that Obama went to all of these Middle Eastern countries apologizing for how America has acted. When in fact, what he was referring to was when Obama was in Europe and talked about how America has not always appreciated Europe as a huge power but then in the next paragraph he talked about how Europe had been anti-American many times. He was not apologizing by any means. But also, Obama did this to Romney by saying that he was calling for troops to still be in Iraq. In his speech on October 8, Romney stated that he the withdrawal was abrupt and more could have been done, but never technically supported sending more troops over there. Again, like I said this was kind of frustrating to listen to (especially after looking up the facts)….I guess that’s just politics…☺ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-third-presidential-debate/2012/10/23/91dbdc4a-1c61-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html#pagebreak

Foreign Policy Debate: Obama v. Romney

Today we are two weeks away from one of the most dramatic presidential elections of the past 20 years. Last night, the two presidential hopefuls met for the last time to discuss foreign policy. As a global politics major and a participant in a foreign policy research study, this was the debate that I was most excited for. However, to tell you the truth, they both greatly disappointed me. It took the moderator over an hour to bring up China, neither candidate addressed Libya or the crisis in the EU, and with every question they found new and creative ways to avoid the topic and get back to domestic policy and the economy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the economy is the biggest issue facing America today and the election will be determined based on economic policy. But, this is the foreign policy debate! I wanted to hear about foreign policy. However, I digress.

            Each candidate had a specific role to play during the debate. As the incumbent, Obama’s job was to reaffirm his position as Commander and Chief. The president represents the United States in many ways, but today, arguably his most important role is as the head of our military.  For over 10 years, we have been in an ongoing conflict in the Middle East and portraying his intentions to not only finish this conflict, but to finish it correctly was a major concern of mine. However, I believe that Obama carried himself very well in regards to that topic. In 2008, he was elected on the premise that he would end the war. While he has technically ended the conflict in Iraq, America still has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did a great job last night of expressing his desire to remove the troops but also to ensure the American people that further terrorist attacks will not be tolerated and that he will protect us. Overall, he portrayed a good combination of both hawk and dove.

            Governor Romney had a very different job do to during the debate. To counter Obama, he needed to prove to American voters that he is prepared to be an even better Commander and Chief than Obama. At the same time, he needed to persuade marginal voters that he is not as much of a “hawk” as the rest of his party is portrayed to be. Foreign policy is a hard topic to use to distinguish one candidate from another. The world always looks different from the oval office so candidates are often hesitant to make large promises or radical demands of foreign nations during campaigns; due to the possibility that their perceptions may change once in office. Compared to Obama, I don’t think that Romney did as well persuading the audience that he can do a better job. For his party, he needed to play the hawk but because of the nature of this election, he held back and at times seemed almost wishy-washy. His constant smirking did not help much either.

            As with the past two debates, factual evidence to appeal to logos were crucial for either side, but both candidates often misquoted each other. One thing that I knew Romney was going to touch on was Obama’s so called “Apology Tour” throughout the Middle East at the beginning of his first term. As a voter who tends to lean to the right, I too had an issue with this tour. However, it appears that Romney was wrong in calling it such. According to the Washington Post fact checkers, Obama never apologized in any of his appearances in the Middle East. This “fact” stems from a speech in France where Obama claimed that America has at time shown arrogance and been dismissive towards Europe. Fact: Europe is not the Middle East, and while I do not agree with what he said, his speech was made to a completely different audience than those he spoke two in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. During this debate, Obama was not as factually accurate either. His campaign loves to highlight the death of Osama Bin Laden as a political victory. During the debate Obama claimed that Romney said that he would not have moved heaven and earth to get just one man, as Obama did. According to the Washington Post, Obama is leaving disregarding the rest of Romney’s speech on the topic made in 2007. In his speech, Romney said, “We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that it is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.” Uncovering Romney’s true words completely distorts Obama’s claim.  

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-third-presidential-debate/2012/10/23/91dbdc4a-1c61-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html) 

Oct 22 Pres debates

Leigh Moring

Comm 369

10/23/12

                                          Analysis of the October 22 Presidential Debate

            Last night’s presidential debate was in my opinion less exciting than the last two debates, not that it lacked heat or aggression or sassy comments. Both candidates gave strong performances overall, but I think that Romney had the edge on the economy while Obama had the edge on foreign policy. More of the 90 minutes seemed to be spent on talking about foreign policy, which is probably not what most Americans care more about, but Obama certainly seemed very clued in to what is going on and how his office can help. Romney kept trying to steer the debate towards to economy where he feels most confident in his plan to help America succeed. Obama seemed to take the more aggressive and defensive strategy in this debate while Romney opted for a more calm but offensive tactic. It almost seemed like the roles were reversed, and Obama was trying to dethrone Romney because of the tactics deployed. Nevertheless, both candidates said some things that the fact checkers have pointed out as inaccurate.

ROMNEY: “The president said by now we’d be at 5.4 percent unemployment. We’re 9 million jobs short of that.” Romney has repeatedly said this throughout the debates and is not exactly true. Obama’s aids had written a 14-page report before he took office that spoke about a theoretical stimulus bill, but it was not an official government document or an actual plan that had passed through congress. The administration did later cite the report in a testimony in congress, but Obama never promised that this would be the case, he only hoped it would be so.

ROMNEY: “When I was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter ‘got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning’."

OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."

ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."

This was one of the times when both candidates got a little feisty with each other. This fact is a quick one to check. What Romney said was absolutely accurate. In 2004 while Romney was governor, The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began and still helps top high school students get a free education in any public Massachusetts college or university. Obama probably just wanted to try to discredit Romney, as he was doing to him.

            ROMNEY: "Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations."

OBAMA: "Nothing Gov. Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact checker and every reporter who's looked at it, governor, has said this is not true."

Romney has wrongly accused the president of traveling the Middle East in his presidency and apologizing for American behavior multiple times in the debates and in speeches. Obama didn't actually apologize during his visits, what he actually said was that the U.S. acted "contrary to our traditions and ideals" when discussing treatment of terrorist suspects, and "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy," that the U.S. "certainly shares blame" for international economic turmoil and has sometimes "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even divisive" toward Europe. (courtesy of Washington Post) Obama never actually apologized for American behavior at all, so Romney should stop referencing Obama’s visit to the Middle East as an “apology tour”.

            This debate definitely got heated at times and both performed well as I stated earlier. Although each candidate had his strong points, I would declare Obama as the winner of the last debate. His performance was more put together and had more credibility than Romney. Romney is still feeding off his success in the first debate, so we will see on November 6^th who pulls out the victory.

3rd Presidential Debate Post

Devin Wrigley

10/23/12

Comm. 369

Weblog Post – 3^rd Presidential Debate

            I found last night’s presidential debate, between President Obama and Governor Romney, to be quite heated and interesting. Overall, I felt that Obama delivered the stronger performance, as he seemed to make stronger points, dominate the topics of conversation, and point out the flaws in Mitt Romney’s plans. However, on the flip side, Obama could be criticized as quite aggressive toward Romney, with a focus on negative campaigning rather than on promoting his own ideas. On Romney’s part, he seemed to have less experience with foreign policy, often “piggybacking” off of Obama’s past and future policy plans, while also trying to shift the conversation back to the U.S. economy (his “strong suit”).

            Even during the debate, there seemed to be controversy and discrepancy regarding several points of factual contestation between the two candidates. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the fact checkers of the debate found several issues regarding the credibility of several of the candidates’ statements. For example, one of the main points of opposition between Obama and Romney related to Obama’s stating that “just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now…. You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.” In response, Romney stated that “there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with.” In reality, Romney never technically stated that troops should still be in Iraq. Rather, in his VMI speech on October 8^th, he stated “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried — and failed — to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.” Moreover, Obama did, in fact, make an attempt to extend the status of forces agreement originally enacted by the Bush administration, however he was not able to make a deal with the Iraqi government that would provided U.S. forces with immunity from prosecution under their law. Therefore, regarding this controversy during the debate, it seems that Mitt Romney prevailed.

            However, Romney also made some inaccurate statements. For example, one of the highlights of last night’s debate concerned Romney stating that “our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” with Obama quipping back, “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” Regarding this point, it seems that Obama came out ahead. In order to make his point, Romney pointed to the fact that in 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 ships, but now has “less” than that. However, he failed to account for the fact that the current list of Navy ships includes far more technologically advanced ships (such as aircraft carriers and missile-equipped submarines as compared to the historical torpedo boats and steel gunboats that were popular during the early 20^th century). Thus, such an argument, in the words of the Washington Post, is an “apples-and-oranges comparison.” Moreover, the current level of ships (as of 2011) is actually 285, and therefore not the lowest since 1916.

            Overall, as aforementioned, I believe that Obama delivered the stronger of the two performances last night. I felt that he was most strongly able to incorporate rhetoric, facts, and strength of speech within a comprehensive message. I felt he was able to hit on pathos-type appeals in incorporating anecdotes, such as the one related to the girl who lost her father in 9/11. He also seemed to generate a great deal of credibility and ethos in citing the beneficial foreign policies he’s been championing for the past four years. Lastly, he used facts and logic in a way that seemed to undermine Romney’s plans and ideas, making his opponent seem less capable and less focused than he. In contrast, Romney did not present a strong performance. Physically, he appeared to be flustered and struggling. Moreover, he essentially agreed with the president on most of his foreign policy ideas, making Obama seem to be the more credible of the two regarding the topics of discussion. Thus, I would deem President Obama to be the winner of the 3^rd Presidential Debate 2012.

Convention Speeches of Romney and Obama

Romney: A for base, A- for undecided

Obama: A+ for base, B+ for undecided

I gave Romney the A for appealing to his base is because he hit on all the points that strong Republicans want to hear such as family values, love of our country, soldiers, lowering taxes, decreasing the national debt, repealing Obamacare, business, creating jobs, hard work, and less governmental control. He was exciting to watch and seemed like a great guy you would want to be friends with. The delegates at the RNC obviously felt this way as they cheered loudly and seemed passionate about his cause and supporting him. Romney gets the A- because he did a great job of humanizing himself to the general public through personal stories and getting his positions on issues out there in a way that most people would find appealing. He had a more difficult job of introducing himself to people while explaining his opinions and he did a great job. Romney appealed to all demographics, and especially to women. He could have explained how he was going to fix the problems that "Obama created" a little more though. His major slogan is "We can't afford 4 more years" and most Americans would agree with that based on lack of jobs and the state of the economy.

Obama gets an A+ because he is a fantastic speaker that can really relate to ordinary Americans. He told the audience about all his successes as President and says that he will continue to help people in any way he can. Obama definitely appealed to his base, and as for the undecided he told that he was going to set more goals for the country and listed reasons why each demographic should vote for him and not Romney. The audience could have really taken to this approach or been taken aback at his harshness and exaggerations. Obama was good about poking fun at himself too which makes people feel more comfortable around him. He says effective phrases like "You are the change" which is very appealing to voters so they can feel like they really made a difference. He gave some personal stories and also paid tribute to the soldiers in Afghanistan which every one likes to see. Obama made it seem like America would be dumb to not vote for him based on his record and accomplishments, and voters probably felt this way because his speech was so effective. Both candidates did a good job in the Convention speeches, so the season can only heat up from here.

Project Proposal- Romney/Obama Comparison

Project Proposal
For my project, my goal is to find out who people would vote for if they were just given a list of 'the facts' and the candidates goals without showing the respective candidate. I want to eliminate as much bias as I can, even my own. I really believe that people my age are so swayed by the opinions of their peers that it is almost difficult to make their own opinion without being heavily influenced by external factors. I think it is important for students to realize their stance and views towards different facets of the whole political spectrum. Sometimes it is easier to make your own opinion when there is not a name with stereotypes and predetermined opinions flashing in your face to choose one over the other. No matter whose political campaign it is, both candidates vocalize their best qualities and bash their opponents worst qualities. What if there was a way for the youth to formulate their own opinion based solely on what they believe to be the best answer for our country. I think that voting would be a lot different if everyone's honest vote appeared on the ballot instead of one that is shaped by family, friends, and the media. Although it is very important to know others' opinions and take them all into account, it is more important to hold your own and be able to keep your opinion even when everyone may disagree with you.

I want this to be an interactive experience that I can capture on video camera, so I will film all of my interviews with people and edit them in a fashion that makes it clear and to the point. I will create a sheet where each side will represent one of the candidates. On each side, I will list facts about that person, mostly what they believe in, what they stand for, etc. I will also include some things that they are promising to change, remove, improve, etc. I realize that some people will be able to recognize some of these points and may be swayed to pick one over the other solely because they know who it is/ what they think the norm is. I will make sure that there is no foggy middle ground between the two sets of points; I will be sure that the differences are clear but unbiased (neither will be bashing the other or one-upping the other). I will then ask that person to show me which one they chose and I will tell them which candidate that actually agreed most with. I think capturing this on video will be great because it will show their thought process and their reaction to their final answer. I will also ask them if this was originally who they were pulling for and, if not, will it change anything? I will probably ask between 20 and 30 people this and record each one of them. Then, I will determine which ones are most significant to the goal of my project. I want people to realize that it is so important to have your own opinion, especially with propaganda, ads, and a media that is stronger than ever, making it hard to even realize your own opinion. I will also add some creativity to it by having music in the background, special effects, etc.

Convention Comparison
When I compared both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney at their respective conventions, I was overall very impressed with Obama's speech. If I were to rate both of them, I would give Obama a 9 and Romney a 7. Obama's speech, in my opinion was clear, educational, and at times even moving. When he paid tribute to the soldiers and said that no matter whose party they are a part of, they give him hope... this was something very real and genuine in my opinion. He did not stand there and try to blame prior presidencies to this recent economic crisis which he has been blamed for. He showed humility, he was honest, and most importantly, he didn't gloat about his achievements, but rather he praised the American people for the good things that have happened. I don't think he needed to stand there and list off all of his achievements because really the people want to feel secure about the future. He mentioned the middle class several times and really focused on values of hard-work, fairness, and equal opportunity. I personally felt that Obama could relate to a greater majority of the American people than Romney could. In college, many students feel like Romney is the favorite and this is because he appeals to those who do have the money to attend college. What we tend to forget is that there are millions of people who can't, and those are the people that he can reach. It is easier to see things from the perspective of something who has lived, survived, and prospered by way of modest beginnings. Obama also used the words "we" and "ours" a lot, which makes us feel like we are more a part of this process and that we are all truly considered and respected. One thing I found to be less successful was his attack on his opponent. I think the speech would have been almost perfect if had left the little stabs out because really they were unnecessary. Overall, I believe his speech was very effective; it was not overly-dramatic, it was genuine and believable.

On the other hand, I believe that Romney's speech had a completely different goal than that of Obama's. Romney's goal was to get the American people to like him. Unlike Obama, he hasn't been under the American eye for four years. He needed to make himself seem more like a human and less like just a political figure. His speech was largely a way to get the American people to connect with him through his stories of his "rough times" in college with his wife, explaining his background as a businessman, and as a father and husband. He stood up for women and talked about how they should have more of a say in decision-making in government. However, this seemed like more of a point of discussion than a genuine opinion. However, he did praise mothers for their hard work and even said, when referring to his wife, that "her job is harder than mine." Surely that won over some stay-at-mothers. He focused largely on his achievements and the success he built from the ground up. Overall, I do believe that his speech truly did humanize him and showed us that he is more like us. However, in my opinion, his speech hardly focused on values or his beliefs, which made it more difficult for us to believe everything. Romney's speech was more like a way to touch on the more important topics to win over the undecided. I think he fell through on the genuineness, though. I cannot blame him for this though since his goal was much more difficult to achieve since he had to get across to all of the american people. His job, I believe, was more difficult in this convention. Either way, I think that Obama's speech was more effective as it covered a greater variety of topics and on a deeper level.