http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1188934,CST-EDT-edit28.article
I read a piece of commentary on the first presidential debate that took place on Friday night. The author points out that this debate is what American politics are all about. There were relatively few scripted zingers and most of the debate contained good substance and allowed viewers to gain valuable insight. After watching the debate I felt that both candidates did well and each had their good moments and bad. However, the true value of this debate was the chance to see some true differences bewtween the candidates. Not universal differneces such as healthcare and the war in Iraq, but differences in opinion on how to handle Iran and other foreign policy issues that do not garner much air time. Another interesting difference that the author points out is how each candidate would alter their plans because of the $700 billion bailout. Interestingly McCain called for a freeze on all programs except for those that are vital. Obama also said spending needs to be reigned in but woudn't want to sacrifice early childhood education programs. I believe this a real fundamental difference between the two candidates and is something that we could see the effects of once either candidate takes office. Would a spending freeze on all programs except those that are considered vital be a benefitial move? And does Obama really think that early childhood education is going to take precedence over other critical programs such as national defense, social security, etc?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree; I think that the candidates both expressed themselves well and gave the public added insight into their views. McCain’s idea for a spending freeze seems slightly extreme. The effects of this would be drastically different depending on what constitutes ‘vital’ for him. Education is fundamental to the next generation’s success and such programs must be weighed against further economic problems. The limited funds for each candidate’s plans could decrease what they intend to do even more than they realize. The selection of programs that receive funding will characterize the presidency positively or negatively.
I was rather impressed by both candidates during the debate; however, I was a little bit disappointed by the meager solutions that were proposed regarding the current economic crisis. Each candidate seems reluctant to support one central resolution, most likely fearing the failure of their proposed idea. Aside from the economy, both McCain and Obama have very opposing strategies regarding our country’s foreign policy. It was interesting to watch McCain and Obama battle regarding the Iraq war and plans to move into Afghanistan. In my personal opinion, McCain’s extensive knowledge and Obama’s inexperience gives McCain the upper-hand in foreign policy issues. It seemed as if Obama had no “real life” experience in the foreign nations we are in conflict in, where as McCain has an understanding of what goes on overseas during this time of war. Regarding our current government spending issues, both candidates need to take immediate action. As a watched the debate, it seemed that both McCain and Obama understand that the outrageous government spending is a serious issue and needs to be cut back. Although I agree with McCain that there are numerous government programs that can be cut back, his approach of freezing all areas aside from national defense and other important programs may be a little excessive. Overall, although there seemed to be no clear winner, the debate was enjoyable to watch and I was able to learn many valuable insights regarding both candidates.
I agree with you Marla that the next president will be handicapped by the financial crisis and the limited amount of money they have available will limit some of their plans. It will be interesting to see which programs the next president chooses to make prominent and the ones he sweeps under the carpet.
Post a Comment