Editorial on Debate Was Unfair
The headline on The Pilot’s editorial of Oct. 5 read: “Obama’s Dismal Debate Showing.” So far, we are in complete agreement.
But this article goes on and makes excuses for our president and other past presidents and their debating failings by saying such things as these presidents were “facing energetic upstarts who had few heavy loads to carry around and therefore enjoyed the freedom to second-guess and run circles around the care-worn current occupant of the Oval Office.”
President Obama has nothing but time and doesn’t seem to have a care. Except that of being re-elected to the presidency.
He has been campaigning for the past two years. He avoided heads of state while the United Nations was in session. And from everything I am reading, we are heading for a big war in the Middle East.
He has time for television appearances such as “The View,” Dave Letterman and golf, but no time for the visiting heads of state. Sorry. He may have heavy loads, but he seems to run away from problems as if they will just go away or disappear.
Jim Lehrer, whom you said let things get out of hand, did a good job. He let the candidates respond fully to the give-and-take of a debate. This is the way an informative debate should be conducted. This is not the same as a debating society contest.
This is a forum for us, the citizens, to hear from these candidates, evaluate them and vote. You can’t do this if the moderator cuts you off in the middle of a thought.
Both of these men were given the opportunity to rebut a comment or comments made by their opponent. Actually, the president was “on mike” five more minutes than his challenger. So how can you complain, other than the president did a lousy job? Why do you feel compelled to make excuses for the president?
It is most disgusting to read comments such as “Romney, on the other hand, came across from the first minute as poised, raring to go and in charge — even if he blinked too much and many of his specific claims failed to hold water.”
Everyone blinks; maybe he just didn’t want to be blinded by the blinding brilliance of the president. By the way, how many blinks are too many?
In many editorials, the writer will make statements of consequence but won’t take the time to substantiate his claim, such as “many of his (Romney’s) specific claims failed to hold water.”
If you can’t substantiate your claims, then please don’t make such snide remarks.
I will finish with several questions:
What is insensitive about a candidate suggesting he will probably lose the 47 percent of the voters who work for or are being cared for by the government? I think this is a very logical statement. The way I took his statement, it was that it will take a whole lot of work to dig our way out of the hole this creates for us.
Why is the truth a fatal self-inflicted wound? Is it better to lie?
Ralph Redmond lives in Pinehurst.
More like this story