![](https://smudailycampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/597293069.jpg)
Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, speaking in Westerville, Ohio on Sept. 26. (AP)
Democrat
I’ve been looking forward to this year’s presidential debates the same way one might look forward to a root canal. You know it’s going to happen at some point, so you might as well just suck it up, hold your breath and wait for it to be over.
In my younger (and, dare I say, more vulnerable years) I anticipated this event with bated breath. I remember sacrificing schoolwork the nights of the debates in high school so I could not only watch the performance of the candidates but also see what pundits and commentators had to say afterwards. Who doesn’t like being talked at like a toddler while paid commentators and party strategists make clear who “won” based upon the number of times a particular candidate stuttered or used too many colloquialisms? Isn’t democracy just grand?
Maybe I still have debate fatigue from the Republican Primary debates. Maybe I just have election fatigue in general after spending a few weeks in Colorado at the end of summer: where I was unable to turn on the TV without being inundated with ads from Democratic and Republican super PACs during every commercial break. (My favorite is the “Romney Girl” ad based on a parody of the Aqua song “Barbie Girl.” I respected it for at least making me laugh.)
However, my indifference to these debates is not unwarranted. A 2008 Gallup study found that since the beginning of the televised presidential debates in 1960 there have only been two instances where they seemed to have any effect on the actual outcome of the election: Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960 and Bush vs. Gore in 2000. Incidentally, both of those races were so close that it’s almost impossible to attribute the winners’ successes to their performance during the debates any more than you could the tidiness of their hair or suits.
The theme for this week’s debate is domestic policy: 45 minutes for the economy, 15 minutes for health care, 15 minutes on the role of government and 15 minutes on governing in general. I don’t even need to watch this debate to know exactly what each candidate is going to say. Mitt Romney will probably start by attacking Barack Obama’s economic policies over the past four years, then he’ll suggest that Obamacare is an awful policy plan and lastly I bet he’ll make it clear that under Obama we haven’t had a real economic recovery (which is not true, but this isn’t a time for facts). Maybe he’ll even invoke the name of the LORD our Reagan and ask the audience if they’re better off now than they were four years ago.
Then, I bet Obama will concede that the recovery isn’t complete but also make it clear that Romney’s party got us into this mess in the first place. After all, if the Republicans had been left in charge things would have been worse. Hmm. “Obama 2012: Things could be worse.” Why hasn’t anyone made that a bumper sticker yet?
I’m not really sure what a candidate would have to do to “win” one of these debates. After all, winning a presidential debate is like winning the American Civil War: even if you come out on top, the other side will simply deny it for an unspecified number of years and keep doing what they did before.
Perhaps the American public would be better served if the moderators prefaced every debate with the Whose Line Is It Anyway catch phrase: “Everything is made up and the points don’t matter.” Such a disclaimer would at least be more honest.
Bub is a junior majoring in English, political science and history.
Republican
A great deal of pressure is being put onto the shoulders of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama for tonight’s debate.
For one thing, Romney is by all accounts trailing President Obama at this juncture and a successful debate could give him the bounce he needs to pull out a win on Nov. 6. For another, the president has a great deal of explaining to do in regards to his large absence in the face of the Middle East crises as he focuses a majority of his attention on reelection and press tours.
I am however concerned for Romney’s success as he comes in to this debate still not having fully weathered the storm of his 47 percent remark. While Romney is a man of results, Obama is a man of many pretty words, able to transfix a nation and bring wayward voters under his wing with a clever turn of phrase.
Romney would be best served to look to the Oct. 28, 1980 Reagan vs. Carter debate in which Reagan asked voters if they were better off now than they were four years ago. While it seems common sense for voters to ask themselves whether or not Obama’s policies have positively or negatively impacted them, reiterating the need for them to do that is imperative.
The economy is arguably the biggest issue going into this election and the issue Romney needs to be prepared to speak about in depth. President Obama made promises about his ability to turn this economy around and said that if he could not he would be a one term president. Now is the time for Romney to point out that he did not keep his promises, he is not trying to be a one-term president and Americans cannot afford four more years under an administration that makes the Carter administration look capable.
Secondly, the president’s relative absence in the matters of the Middle East and blatant cover-up of the coordinated terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya should of course be addressed as it showcases the commander in chief’s lack of initiative in regards to foreign policy. Why was a meeting with our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, not made the highest priority? Why is this administration only now admitting that this was a terrorist attack was to chalk it up to a protest gone awry? Why in recent weeks has he been on The View and David Letterman instead of dealing with matters of state?
These are valid concerns in which the American electorate deserves answers. Romney must make it clear then that if elected, the United States will take a more assertive role in matters of foreign policy and national security.
Finally, if I were Romney, I would address the fact that communist Venezuelan “President” (read: dictator) Hugo Chavez has recently come out as saying if he were an American he would vote for Obama. That should be a huge red flag for voters as this man is in no way an ally of the Untied States and his essentially endorsing President Obama should be a great detractor to the character of his campaign.
Of course there are a great many topics that should and will be covered in the debate, but currently the economy and foreign policy are the most news worthy and I anticipate will take up the most time. While most voters have already aligned themselves with a candidate, there are still a few who will be watching to see who comes out ahead when these two face off.
However, I think the true bloodbath will be when Paul Ryan takes on the bumbling Joe Biden and if that is not able to sway voters away from the left, nothing will. Romney’s chief job will be to show that he is not a man of pretty words like Obama, but a man of character and authority much more capable of leading the country than a one term senator.
Dunn is a junior majoring in political science.