In this post we look at two debates. The first is a clip
from one of our comedy festival debates. I don't think I've posted it before
[probably been a bit wary of doing so] but there is no obligation to click the
play button.
The second debate is the first in the U.S. Presidential
debate series.
------------
Rubye Jack asked me if I had seen the U.S. Presidential
debate and, if so, what did I make of it?
Well, I hadn't seen it. What happens in America affects
the rest of the world but, quite simply, if I were an American voter I would be
a Democrat. No debate needed.
Reports here said that Obama had performed badly in the
debate. "Oh dear," I said to myself, then turned some more pages in
the paper to find out what Garfield was up to for the day.
However, following Rubye's enquiry, I duly found a copy on
YouTube and the first thing I learned was that it went for 1 hour 31 minutes.
Oy.
Why did Obama perform badly? I decided to try 30 minutes
of the debate and ask myself if, as a speechwriter or campaign manager I had to
see where Obama went wrong, what I would find
I was immediately distracted from this goal because what I
saw was a very civilised exchange of ideas between two men who both seemed
reasonable. Even the one or two sly digs each had at the other were polite and
civilised.
Forget 1 hour and 31 minutes - I can't even sit through 1
minute 31 seconds of Question Time in Australia's parliament. Our own reps are
rude, puerile, uncivilised, disinterested in any point of view or idea
but their own, disrespectful of their office, and contemptuous of the voters of
Australia.
Having got over my distraction, I went back to the
performances in the U.S. debate.
After 30 minutes it was glaringly obvious why Obama
"lost".
Neither Obama or Romney is an orator's bootlace, but
perhaps it's unfair to compare them to Martin Luther King Jr, or Gough Whitlam
at their best.
In the absence of some classical oratorical style, the
next best thing is to follow the quick and nasty rules of corporate speak or advertising.
Romney stood tall. Obama looked stooped.
Obama waffled. Romney
- said
how many points he was going to make [5]; and
- counted
them off as he made them
Numbered points excite listeners who have to filter stuff
to take notes, because by numbering points a speaker dictates notes for them.
No homework required.
Numbered points suggest the speaker understands the
issues, has a clear idea of how many problems there are and how to address
them, and has an equal number of answers, and the answers are straightforward
and easy to follow.
If Romney scored a goal straight up with his numbered
points, he kept the ball in his own goal square by jumping right in with the
Joe the Plumber thing. He fought dirty; he personalised issues. He
mentioned people he had spoken to, and their situations and concerns.
Obama spoke in sweeping terms of his past achievements.
Romney spoke of future plans.
Obama failed to "answer the question" put to
him, by disputing Romney's claims about Obama's policy on something or other.
Romney threw in a few more Joe the Plumbers, and mentioned
his 5 boys as well. Barack just kept asserting that Romney was going to spend 7
billion dollars. Romney simply denied this assertion, but Obama made the
assertion over and over, while failing to supply any information about where
the claim could be verified.
Obama spoke of the proven approach of the Clinton
administration. Romney said he had new solutions.
Obama kept saying 'middle class', while Romney kept saying
'middle income'.
Most telling, as this was live and edited on the fly, was
the number of times we saw Romney "noddies" [2] compared to the
number of times we saw Obama's reaction when Romney was speaking [4 or 5].
Obama was not looking at Romney, he wasn't listening, he
was jumping ahead in his own mind to what he wanted to say himself. This was
really not a good look. Was the editing deliberate? It wasn't helpful.
It might have been low self-esteem or a lack of direction
that drove me to it, but I ended up watching the remaining hour of debate.
Maybe I was just mesmerised by the sheer civility and reason I was witnessing.
In the last hour, Obama finally got his act together. He
engaged with Romney. They both acknowledged the other's good ideas as well as
discussing differences. Obama stopped waffling so much and started talking
specifics instead of assertions. Towards the end, Obama was itemising points
while Romney had dropped the numbered list ploy. Obama finally mentioned a few
voters in a personal way.
Romney scored a late goal from 50 metres when he said 42%
of Spain's budget goes to government spending - and 42% of America's budget
currently goes to government spending.
What is the attention span of a gnat? Sorry, this isn't
about me… what is the attention span of an average adult? How much of what one
hears can one absorb or retain in one hit?
If people turned off or tuned out or snored after the
first half hour, no wonder Obama lost. One hour of a reasonably good
performance can't really offset a first half hour of poor performance if people
are no longer watching.
Sad.
-----------------------
A lot of the medicare/ Obamacare debate was utterly lost
on me. The USian health insurance system is insane. The idea of health
insurance being linked to a specific employer was simply a way of exploiting a
loophole in the law during WWII - a way of luring workers from one job to
another when wages were fixed. [Don't quote me on that. Don't ever forget I'm
slack, or that 87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.]
It might have been logical at the time, but it is a
ludicrous health insurance system that should have been, and could easily have
been rectified, long ago.
In his closing remarks, Romney claimed that it was a great
system that has served America well for a very long time - or something to that
effect - and that Americans enjoy the best health care in the world.
Bollocks.
Infant mortality rates from best to worst
- White
Australia
- White
America
- Indigenous
America
- Black
America
- Indigenous
Australia.
[The last time I looked, Black America's rates were so
appalling they were nearly as bad as Indigenous Australia's! Not impressive.]
Life expectancy of Males and Females in White America is
marginally worse than White Australia.
[Gosh, this is almost as much fun as Melbourne v Sydney].
------------
Same old federal vs state rights /responsibilities
problems as here - with a major difference. The states in Australia first
surrendered income taxation rights long ago, and have since surrendered other
tax rights. We are suffering federalisation by stealth - the federal/state
thing in the U.S. seems far more robust.
Both want to reduce the deficit and reduce taxes without
compromising their plans to reduce the deficit. Both want to simplify the tax
code.
ROFLMAO.
Wasn't our GST act introduced into Parliament with the
title "An Act to Simplify the Tax Act?" or something equally
Orwellian?
Romney is totally a state rights man.
The whole state v federal government thing - in an age of
private enterprise, and large international corporations, and whether in the
U.S. or here, is a topic for another day.
Romney sees the need for government to maintain its
existing level of revenue. One way to do this is to reduce income tax rates,
while offsetting the revenue loss by reducing available deductions. Sounds like
it is effectively the same thing to me.
Obama said he would eliminate tax deductibility for
corporations sending jobs offshore. Now there's a sensible idea.
[Don't get me started on all the money Bob Hawke gave to
Kodak, or the way Pacific Brands was able to take government money, then send
jobs offshore and sell up Australian equipment brought with our money. That's
before PB claims the expenses involved in screwing us over.]
-----------
To be honest, there is bugger all difference between the
parties if one goes by this debate. Both men paid homage to truth, justice, and
free enterprise as the American way. They both came across as personally
intelligent, capable leaders. Romney certainly doesn't look as scary as Bush Jr.
Yet there is also something surreal about it. Neither of
these men seem to bear any connection whatsoever to the loonie nutters we love
to laugh at while smugly saying "only in America"… in between
outbursts of cowplop back home.
Next in this series we look at the people of America who
actually cast the votes.
