Now, I am not an election enthusiast who would not miss one second of the debates. But, when I do have some free time, I will sit down on the couch and watch my Tivo'ed programs. I scrolled down the list of recorded programs and I noticed the last debate was recorded. While watching it, I saw many idealistic and pragmatic approaches to our countries problems. One thing that both McCain and Obama had a similar pragmatic approach toward, is how to rid our country of dependence on foreign oil.
The question asked was, how much do think you can reduce foreign oil imports during your first term? When the candidates responded to the question, they both answered with a similar time frame in which they can escape dependency on foreign oil. McCain believes that he can escape dependency on foreign oil in 7 to 8 years while Obama believes it would take 10 years. Now, these approaches are very pragmatic and tangible. Usually, presidential candidates like to give idealistic answers, but on this topic they both answered with a realistic answer. I think this issue is extremely important and to give an empty promise would do no good. Also, Americans realize that it will take a long time to rid our dependency of foreign oil, so it could only hurt a candidates campaign to say they can solve the problem in a time frame such as 4 years. As an American (who will eventually vote), it is much more helpful to hear realistic answers on a candidates approach than idealistic answers. It's helpful because then you actually know how the candidate will deal with the issue instead of an empty promise that will never be fulfilled. This debate was very interesting that showed a lot about both candidates.
The question asked was, how much do think you can reduce foreign oil imports during your first term? When the candidates responded to the question, they both answered with a similar time frame in which they can escape dependency on foreign oil. McCain believes that he can escape dependency on foreign oil in 7 to 8 years while Obama believes it would take 10 years. Now, these approaches are very pragmatic and tangible. Usually, presidential candidates like to give idealistic answers, but on this topic they both answered with a realistic answer. I think this issue is extremely important and to give an empty promise would do no good. Also, Americans realize that it will take a long time to rid our dependency of foreign oil, so it could only hurt a candidates campaign to say they can solve the problem in a time frame such as 4 years. As an American (who will eventually vote), it is much more helpful to hear realistic answers on a candidates approach than idealistic answers. It's helpful because then you actually know how the candidate will deal with the issue instead of an empty promise that will never be fulfilled. This debate was very interesting that showed a lot about both candidates.
3 comments:
Because the candidates gave time frames from 7 to 10 years, it seems like they are being pragmatic since it is very unlikely that our foreign oil dependency will end in 4 years. But are they really being pragmatic? I will admit that I do not know too much about this topic, but can it really be done in the time frames that the candidated have suggested? Both Obama and McCain have given plans on how they will stop our dependency on foreign oil, but neither are specific enough to tell if the time they say it will take is reasonable. Could it even take 20 years to solve this problem? If they really are being pragmatic, as it seems they are, this would not be the case. Hopefully, our next president will start solving this problem as soon as they can.
Great discussion guys!
I think it's really easy for a person to say that they will make the country independent in however many years, but to really convince me of the time frame they chose, I need details. How will his plan have us cutting back on dependancy? How will he do it? What are the specifics? Is this realistic in relationship to his original time frame? I know that the debates would be 74 hours long if they went incredibly in depth with each topic, but seriously, details please.
I think this skimping on getting to the meaty part of the answers was very humorously addressed on Saturday Night Live. Each candidate would introduce and elaborate on the question posed, but run out of time before they could answer. By the end neither had given a straight answer. Now I know this is an exaggeration but it does make a point that these debates really only confirm what the candidate has been saying all along. I think there should be some sort of debate like program that is as well publicized and popular that gives the candidates a chance to fully explain their plans. But that's wishful thinking...
Post a Comment