John McCain's Debate Notes
-Address audience as "My friends"
-Mention the words "cronyism and corruption"
-Don't forget about EARMARKS!
-Try to get audience to believe Obama is going to raise taxes for the middle class
I've really had a hard time watching these debates. There is very little said that is more than generalities, vague statements that might come off as popular among the electorate and mentions of contradictions in the other candidate's voting record. The problem that I see with constantly bringing up voting records in the senate is that often times, as far as I understand it, Senators will vote on a plan that might be the lesser of two evils, and thus might be painted as being a die-hard supporter of such a plan when they were merely choosing the best realistic option. This is obviously applicable to both sides.
Like most other people who watch these debates, I can't claim to know the ins and outs of all the issues that are discussed. I try to educate myself as best I can about the topics that I feel are the most important for myself and others going forward (the state of the economy, health care, taxes, alternative energy initiatives, restructuring our approach to foreign policy, transportation issues), but I can't possibly know everything there is to know about them. Therefore, I inevitably feel like I can't always cut to the truth behind statements that are brandied about by both of these politicians, can't always decipher which statements are honest and sincere and which are fraught with mistruths and stray toward disingenuity.
Which is worse, this type of bullshit debate format or the speeches from the conventions where the audience cheers every single word?
-Mention the words "cronyism and corruption"
-Don't forget about EARMARKS!
-Try to get audience to believe Obama is going to raise taxes for the middle class
I've really had a hard time watching these debates. There is very little said that is more than generalities, vague statements that might come off as popular among the electorate and mentions of contradictions in the other candidate's voting record. The problem that I see with constantly bringing up voting records in the senate is that often times, as far as I understand it, Senators will vote on a plan that might be the lesser of two evils, and thus might be painted as being a die-hard supporter of such a plan when they were merely choosing the best realistic option. This is obviously applicable to both sides.
Like most other people who watch these debates, I can't claim to know the ins and outs of all the issues that are discussed. I try to educate myself as best I can about the topics that I feel are the most important for myself and others going forward (the state of the economy, health care, taxes, alternative energy initiatives, restructuring our approach to foreign policy, transportation issues), but I can't possibly know everything there is to know about them. Therefore, I inevitably feel like I can't always cut to the truth behind statements that are brandied about by both of these politicians, can't always decipher which statements are honest and sincere and which are fraught with mistruths and stray toward disingenuity.
Which is worse, this type of bullshit debate format or the speeches from the conventions where the audience cheers every single word?
