On the first presidential debate,
the general consensus has been the lack of aggression and authority in President
Obama’s presentation. While Governor Romney demanded more speaking time,
manhandling the mediator in the meantime, it seemed as if Obama was looking to
execute a counter-attack that never happened. The lack of character in the
debate arguable left a void in the Obama’s campaign. Last Thursday’s vice
presidential debate, in my opinion, provided an opportunity for Vice President Joe
Biden to compensate for the lack of aggression and alpha presence that Obama
lacked for the Democratic party; and ultimately, Biden did in fact project an
increasingly aggressive presence in the debate, much like Romney did. On top of
that, Biden inherited what appeared to be Obama’s strategy, by looking to
counter-attack Congressman Paul Ryan’s criticisms of the Democrat policies.
What made the vice presidential debate a success for the Obama-Biden ticket,
was Biden’s aggressiveness which allowed him to clearly convey facts and
statements in order to counter Ryan’s criticisms.
By emphasizing his experience, some
as far back as Reagan era, Biden was able to establish his veteran presence and
conveyed his responses in a methodic approach by numbering his arguments. On
the other end, Paul Ryan addressed the audience and mediator with his youthful
charisma; however, at many times, seemed like he was over-acting. If I need to
elaborate on the term “over-acting”, it seemed as if he was trying too hard,
like a D-list actor auditioning for an A-list role. Biden’s presentation was
perfect either, as the congressman at one point stated [after a persistent
interruption from Biden], “…I understand you’re under a lot of duress to cover
lost ground”.
In my perception, Biden’s success
over this debate came from several instances where he was able to respond to
Ryan’s main criticisms with counter-statements, which the congressman could not
respond to. The first which instance which stood out came from Biden’s response
to Ryan’s very set of statements regarding the lack of embassy protection. In
regards to the Libya attacks on the American embassy members, Ryan indicated to
the lack of protection the Obama administration gave to the embassy; however,
Biden immediately responded by identifying the $300 million cut on embassy
protection under Ryan’s proposed budget.
In regards to the threat of Iran’s
nuclear proliferation, Ryan was quick to note that Iran is much closer now to acquiring
nuclear warheads than they were before the Obama administration; however, again
Biden responded by identifying that until Iran acquires a weaponry body to
place the enriched uranium in, they are far from building an actual warhead. On
top of Ryan’s inability to disprove Biden’s explanation of warhead
construction, the vice president contributed to one of the most interesting
factors following this debate, which are the lingering questions that remain
unanswered. “What more can the president do?” To clearly elaborate on this
question which Biden directly asked the mediator and Ryan, what more could the
president do to freeze Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities that is short of
going to war? This question basically won this topic for Biden. Even though the
current sanctions have not led to any stoppage of nuclear enrichment in Iran,
he placed the burden of answering the question on Ryan; in which his inability
to do so led to the perception of the congressman’s inadequacy in regards to
handling this subject.
Another instance of Biden’s counter
responses was following his own speech on the success of the 2008 bailouts of
the automobile industry. Ryan followed the vice president’s statements by
highlighting the slow economic growth of the decision to do so. This response
by Ryan was successful in reveling that the bailout was not actually as
successful in its own terms since the economy has only been growing by 1%,
rather than the projected 4% that was married to the promotion of the bailout
decision. Biden, however, came back by explaining that Ryan actually sent him a
letter asking for a stimulus package, similar to the bailout, and quoted the
congressman’s own words explaining that it would “stimulate economic growth”.
Although this letter was just a small blip in Ryan’s commitments, Biden’s
counter-response painted a contradiction in sole premise of Ryan’s statements,
which discredited the congressman for much of the economic section of the
debate.
Amongst all the complex details
regarding the tax section of the debate, the premise is quite simple, and that
is the competition in ideologies. Both the vice president and the congressman
presented numbers and statistics provided by numerous studies by numerous
associations titled with acronyms which, in fast speech, will fly right over
the audience’s head. What stuck was simply the competition between the
Obama-Biden ticket’s quest for lower middle-class tax rates and higher
upper-class tax rates, versus the Romney-Ryan ticket’s higher middle-class
taxes, but lower tax rates for higher income individuals who create employment
opportunities within the country. However, Biden turned this ideological debate
to his favor by asking the congressman where they would find $5 trillion in loopholes
to finance tax reliefs for both the middle class and the higher income
individuals [as Ryan claimed]. Paul Ryan simply could not answer with
specifics, which turned this otherwise evenly matched competition of ideologies
slightly into Biden’s favor.
In regards to the situation in
Syria, Paul Ryan insisted that the foreign policy should not have been
outsourced through the United Nations, which Russia the power to veto any
decisions to intervene in Syria, and concluded that it decreased the trust that
their allies had for them. Biden quickly responded, although again with his
aggressive and interrupting behavior, that 49 of their allies had actually
agreed on their decision to outsource through the UN. But the most interesting
part of this section of the debate was the question provoked by the discussion
between Biden and Paul. Without retrieving UN approval for an intervention, wouldn’t
any action taken by the US government in Syria be mirrored by the criticism and
negativity surrounding the Iraq invasion in 2003? Because this is the stance of
the Romney-Ryan ticket, the lack of an answer [in my perception] left a void
in Paul Ryan’s argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment