In the days following the first presidential debate, I heard many people saying how Romney "won" the debate. They cited how Romney pushed his points more, and how Obama was much more passive. However, the points that he made didn't seem to be his own. This article mentions a few of the things Romney said, and how it matches up to his previous promises. I won't go into too much detail about what he said, but the article compares Mitt's words in the debate to his actual policies. For example, Romney said he didn't want to cut taxes for the rich. However, most of his plans would end up benefiting the rich, such as cutting the estate tax.
Even when he lied, Romney still seemed to manage to "win" the debate. But how meaningful ifs a win if he wasn't honest? What happens when people like one version of him, but then changes? I don't think that it's fair to voters who watch the debates. People are trying to make a decision, and they can't make a good decision using bad information.
What do you think? Should presidential candidates be allowed to lie in debates? What could we do to make sure that people are getting facts? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
I believe it is wrong for a politician to "lie" so to speak, but often times I hear them correcting themselves in the days following. When I think about the amount of pressure a candidate is under during a debate or speech, I am truly amazed at how they seem to keep their cool. Remembering every little detail of their plans for when they become President seems impossible.
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree with you, Sean, that there needs to be a way to find out the correct information. I don't think there really is a way to get the exact truth.