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 Moreover, Obama did, in fact, make an attempt to extend the status of forces agreement originally enacted by the Bush administration, however he was not able to make a deal with the Iraqi government that would provided U.S. forces with immunity from prosecution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.