I believe that Governor Romney ‘wins’ in this exchange. Speaker Gingrich says he resigned as Speaker because the goals and results that were received were not as good as they should have been; he said that he took a leadership position and resigned from Speaker to do other things. Romney digs down to the truth of why Gingrich actually left. Romney points out that the Speaker resigned under bad terms with Republicans, and that he was the only Speaker in history to actually resign. Brian Williams asks Gingrich about ‘lobbying’ and he responds about his consulting work with Freddie Mac. There should be no problem with any citizen to take part in consulting with any firm, but it doesn’t look good for Gingrich to have been consulting with Freddie Mac because of the recent situation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Romney says that Gingrich made money from consulting with Freddie Mac because he took advantage as a Washington insider when he should have been offering advice on how to help the housing market and not cashing in over $300,000. The attacks from the Republican party on each candidate creates discussion for which candidate is fit for the nomination. It creates a great debate for which candidate should run against President Obama. I also believe it will hurt the Republican party down the road in the general election; Attacking from within the party doesn’t sound like the best idea when trying to win back the presidency.
I believe that Romney, hands down, won this exchange. The reason i believe this to be true is how Romney kept slamming Gingrich with back up comments as Gingrich tried to "weasel" his way out of it with replies to try to save himself along with his reputation as a republican candidate. Also, Romney had his facts straight and was trying to "get down" to business by bringing what needed to be done. This however is not good for American Politics, reason being that that there is tension and disagreement within the party, in which that is trying to win back the house, which in turn will give the American society a bad image of the republican representative(s).
First I will say that I would fully expect something like this from a group of politicians competing for the Americans vote. However I wish we as American people could still get this drive and determination once they are in office. I almost feel that neither of them won the argument. They both, in their own way, had some good points. I feel as if it wasn’t Mitt v Newt but Mitt beating up on Newt. I do think Mitt had a good point when he called out Newt on his so called “lobbying” and I feel as if maybe Newt was just trying to bend rules. While yes it is an American right, it has to be justified. I think of it kind of as you have the American right to free speech so long as it does not put anybody in physical danger or slander. Of course that all was political hear say from Mitt to the best of my knowledge. Now do I feel that this kind of debate is good for American politics, yes and no. I say yes because it gives the American people an opportunity to see a little bit of how that candidate handles pressure. For example, had Newt fired off and physically hit Mitt for his comments, I don’t feel that Newt would still be in the race. I say no because it almost sounds like a “who really cares” topic that was drug on way to long. So it does have its pros and cons.
I feel that Romney had a very strong point by basing his small argument around lobbying. Lobbying gives off an smell of rich, and pocketing money, and protecting your own interests. Romney repeatedly brought up the word "lobbying" so it will stick in Americans minds. At first it appeared that Romney was simply grasping at straws by saying Newt is the only Speaker that was forced out, and while Newt clearly fought back against that by painting a picture of how he felt he wasn't good enough. Newt was trying to paint himself as a stand-up guy that he knows when to step down. That backfired on him because Romney brought up how Newt could have spoken out more and could have been more persistent to get things done. I think this exchange is good for politics because it's real-life facts and whenever solid points are thrown out it can really sway the voters. I think arrguments like these can show flaws in candidates, but it is a double-edged sword because candidates have to be able to accept flaws being pointed out about their own character and their own history. Newt Gingrich knew that "lobbying" would be harmful to his public image, so he tried to play out that Romney was saying stuff that was untrue, and that Romney was making false statements. Arguments like these can show a candidate's slyness and ability to refute false statements. The key things to take away from this small argument is lobbying, and not willing to do enough to make a change. These points will be stongly cemented into voter's minds and make it seem that maybe Newt Gingrich will not do enough, as president, to make a difference in America.
In my opinion, I believe that Newt Gingrich had his back against the wall in this exchange. Mitt Romney pressured Gingrich the whole time by the way he handled being the Speaker of the House. One reason that Romney won was because of the facts and data that were provided throughout the whole video. Facts such as 88% of republicans reprimanded Newt Gingrich as he resigned in disgrace. Also, Mitt pointed out to the audience that this was the first time in America that the Speaker of the House had resigned. Another reason as to why Romney “won” the exchange was because of the body language and the non-verbal’s used by Newt Gingrich. Whether Newt was embarrassed or angry, he looked guilty from the beginning. His face turned bright red, he stuttered, and couldn’t keep still. This had guilty written all over it! On the other hand Mitt Romney stayed very calm and patient. He spoke very clearly and kept his composure unlike Gingrich. This very well could be the turning point for Mitt in this election. He grabbed the audience’s attention about the housing problems that occurred while Newt was a speaker in the house, and basically scolded him as to how he was part of the problem. He said instead of doing anything he was just making millions during his tenure and letting everything fall apart, which made Newt lose even more credibility.
This exchange is a prime example of what is going on in the current congress and we get to see first-hand what is going on Capitol Hill. The American public is tired of seeing this type of in-fighting amongst candidates, and representatives, this is not helping to move America in the direction we need to be going. During this exchange we see that Mitt Romney came into this debate ready to mudsling at Newt, and Newt did his best to address the accusations as they were presented but became frustrated by Mitt’s continuous accusations. We also can take note that Mitt is really jumping from one accusation to the next without really giving a segway into the next, or without the topic first being addressed. In my opinion I think Newt won that exchange. Mitt just came in ready to attack and did so, to the extent that the accusations were about topics that were not already brought forward. Newt did his best to contain his composure and address the issues as they were presented. Newt’s frustration boiled over when the topic of Freddie Mac and Newt’s “lobbyist activities” were brought up. Mitt Romney also had investments with Freddie Mac, and I believe that is where Mitt begins to lose the exchange, because it is there that it turns to mudslinging.
I believe that in this exchange Romney clearly owned the stage in terms of speech domination which is a good trait for the president. But, I got a sense of exaggeration in some of his accusations toward Gingrich which may have been prepared prior to the debate. Since his argument was entirely focused on attacking his opponent rather than stating his flaws and following it with how he personally has done or will do better in the future, I believe that this exchange is bad for American Politics. Yes, it is a competition, but what does this kind of behavior say about how he will act as president? Should we assume that if there is a flood on our coast he will simply blame it on God and continue to go on about God’s flaws? Or maybe he will exaggerate the situation further and blame it on a new technology China has developed to send tragic storms to other countries. And in both of these scenarios, based on his debating style he will continue to point and place blame while failing to send aid to his countrymen. I guess if we can assume such embellished stories are true you could also assume he does not care if they live, because if they are alive they will probably not vote for him again, but if they are dead they cannot vote at all. I am exaggerating of course, but only to show how bloated some of the statements have or could have become in most political debates. I believe both candidates have good potential for a shot at the presidency, but I challenge voters to look past the trash and cash thrown into the debates and elections and look deeper into the candidates life prior to politics and see what he stood for and what he did and then look at his more recent resume. If you know where someone has come from and where they have gone thus far, you can better predict where they will be going in the future.
First, I believe Governor Romney wins in this exchange, no question about it. Newt lied about how he left the speaker and Romney was the one that told the truth about it. He did take responsibility in leaving the speaker's position but he was forced out by his own political party. Romney said 88% of Republicans wanted him out. That's not good for a republican candidate who is running for office. I agree with Romney, that Newt didn't leave happy but in disgrace. Just hearing that, I don't understand why he would want to run for president. I wouldn't want my president to ever to be voted out of office. Even by the same party he running as president on. Romney also won when he said that Newt took the side of Freddy Mac. A man that a lot of American people don't like. I liked when Romney said that Newt was being paid millions by the same person getting Americans to pay them millions. If I had a house and paying money to Freddie Mac, I wouldn't want my president wanting him to do that and getting paid more than me to have it happen. At the same time, being happy that my house might be foreclosed. Romney defiantly won by a landslide.
I believe it's good for American politics. Americans should know the facts about each candidate, instead of lies they tell. Especially when they talk about reason's why they leave public office or about issues like American homes.
I believe that Mitt Romney won this exchange because Newt Gringrich didn't seem to have much to back himself up. Gringrich's story was easily broken down once Romney started stating facts about how the republican party voted him out of office. Gringrich literally lied and said that he chose to leave when the facts clearly show he was voted out of office. I feel like Gringrich made himself look foolish because instead of being honest and facing the facts of the situation he twisted them in his favor. To me this was a horrible idea when running for such a high office, of course his competitor is going to find dirt on him and use it to bring him down. Also Romney brings up a very good point about Gringrich having an opportunity to stand up to up against the housing collapse and how he didn't take the opportunity to stand up against it. I feel like this is an example of good American politics because they are pointing out facts of what they do and using that to show the true character of the candidate.
Besides the information that is discussed in the first 2:23 of the video, the type of back and forth composure of Mitt and Newt indicates that Mitt Romney wins this exchange. Mitt is composed and on the offense stating facts and placing Newt under pressure. Newt stammers and is having to defend himself. This type of exchange is good for American politics. It allows for viewers to see the reactions of candidates to pressure.
While I was watching this exchange in real time during the actual debate, I did not think there was a clear winner here. The way this clip has been edited and pieced together on the other hand, makes it seem that Gingrich was clearly on the offensive, and I could see how many might view him as abrasive because of this exchange. This certainly helped Romney to appear to be “more electable”, even if the reality of the Obama campaign theme says otherwise. Regardless of who won this particular exchange, I believe the American people are the real winners of this exchange. Throughout this debate season, they have seen candidates at their best, and certainly seen them at their worst as well. It is good that controversial issues are brought up in settings like this, even when they may not be wholly true. Voters should understand that candidates are going to throw barbs, as has been done in politics since the inception of the idea. It is the responsibility of the voters to take the ideas brought up in exchanges like this and do their own research into what is true and what is not. If someone solely makes their decision based on what one candidate says about the other, then that shows their ignorance and inability to think with reason. This is how the process works, and ultimately the Republican nominee that faces the Obama Billion dollar re-election campaign had better be prepared for many more mudslinging contests and testy exchanges with the president. These debates should be good practice in that respect.
Based on this video, I believe it is fairly obvious that Romney was the winner. Gingrich spent the debate playing defence. Though playing defense isn't an automatic loss, Gingrich didn't exactly play defence well. When presented with Romney's accusation of lobbying, Gingrich did a good job of explaining the difference between "lobbying" and "public advocacy"... until Romney cornered him with his own definition. Gingrich did a good job of speaking, but Romney did a good job of debating, which tends to be good during a debate.
Despite differences in opinion, this is a great thing for American politics. The debate process allows the American people to see what the candidates are capable of doing when presented with a situation that isn't ideal. This, in a sense, is the also the way the candidates would act if they were in office when something pressing happens. It also allows people to learn something about the candidates that hasn't been filtered through numerous campaign personnel. It may be one of the only times where complete truth reaches the American people.
The debate has to be separated into two separate parts in order to fully understand the true winner of the small portion of the debate. First, you have to look at the tone/body language of each speaker, and secondly the actual arguments themselves. It’s important to look at the tone/body language separately, because doing so allows you to see the speaker’s feelings about what they are saying. Moreover, separating the speech into these two parts allows you to look past the speaker’s outer exterior and look at the basis of the argumentation itself. It’s very clear that Romney is the more confident speakers of the two, and is especially more believable in his delivery and style. Confidence alone could lead many listeners alone to believe what is being said to be true, or that the debate was won at that point. I found that outside of confidence of Romney and the defensive tactics of Gingrich, the facts are were the main factor in the debate’s winner. After looking at the factual arguments, Romney in my opinion wins the debate on a sole argument at the beginning of the clip. Romney points out that members of his own congressional team wanted to remove Gingrich, and 88% of republicans voted to reprimand him which ultimately lead to his resignation. With this key argument Romney exposes his lack of popularity among the higher officials, but also that he resigned from the position, a trait no president should exhibit. Even with circumstances outside of our understanding, Gingrich did not do a good job of defending himself, and debate is about winning the presented arguments. Thus, Romney wins the debate. This exchange is good for American politics, because the two candidates must argue and expose each other’s weaknesses on a national stage, allowing citizens to make a more educated decision.
I want to go ahead and answer the second question regarding whether or not its bad for American politics, and in my opinion I believe this hurts both candidates and it hurts the view of our political system. I believe both of these men get off track of the real issues in which they having the debate in the first place, which is to talk about the ways these candidates can improve our country by the decisions they believe in. Not to call each other out on national television and play the who did what game. However, in our current political system the popular thing to do is to downplay the other candidates and make others look good. I do believe however it is necessary to bring past actions up just so people can get a idea of what that candidate were thinking at that particular time.
To answer the first question about who won the exchange, I believe Romney threw some pretty tough words towards Newt and made him seem pretty pathetic. I thought Romney had the confidence and the stern demeanor to throw Newt off a little bit.
During the debate it was clear to me that Mitt Romney won in the exchange. He put Newt Gringrich on the spot several times throughout the debate. Romney commented on many issues he disagreed with Newt on. For example, when Romney questioned Newt about his position of Speaker of the House. Romney mentioned how Newt could have spoken up more during his time in this position. I believe Romney’s criticism of Newt definitely benefited him during the debate. Although his strategy did work, It makes me question why that was his main objective. Overall Romney did a better job debating his arguments, whereas Newt just explained his viewpoints.
For America I believe this exchange is very beneficial. It helps society see the ideas and beliefs of the candidates. It lets America take an opinion for themselves of what they believe in. Also, people who were not aware of the candidates can now become more involved throughout the election. The debate made me more aware of the candidates running, and I am excited to see what more the election has coming.
I believe that anybody familiar with rhetoric would undoubtedly say that Governor Romney won this exchange. He presented his ideas in a "matter-of-fact" way. By appealing to the audience utilizing this approach it really made it hard for Gingrich to combat anything what Romney stated. The only thing Gingrich could do was get all defensive and start talking about how it was "false" yet offered no evidence in his rebuttal , therefore showing a potentially crippling weakness. Romney picked through issues that I believe everyday people need to know. although many people do not pay attention to politics, I think it is very significant to point out the fact that his own party voted him out.
As to the matter of whether this type of exchange is good or bad for American politics, I could honestly say that this is exactly the type of politics we need. It has been historically recorded that people’s knowledge of the lesser known roles in government has been decreasing ever so steeply. Knowing this, these type of debates play a vital role in getting the everyday average American blue collar worker educated about potential candidates. Moderators, such as Brian Williams, have, in effect, a unannounced duty to fill these gaps for the American people. It is only when the strait forward hard hitting questions are asked, can the average American actually understand where each candidate is coming from. The most amazing thing I love about being in a democracy is that there is a winner and there is a loser; and that loser has to agree to lose, in this case, Romney won and presented himself as the clear-cut, logical choice for the candidate. When it mattered, Gingrich didn’t deliver and it’s only when faced with controversy does person’s true character show.
Governor Romney "wins" this exchange of debate. However, I tread carefully on the word of "win."
It scares me to think that Gingrich "resigned" as Speaker of the House because he wasn't seeing as good as results as he initially thought they were going to be, when he took the position. When he said that results weren’t happening, he was doing a service to resign as the speaker, my question is: "What are you going to do when you don't see the results you promised the American people? Resign as President?" So honestly, Gingrich lost the debate as soon as he said that. I mean what are you doing running for the United States President, when that came out of your mouth as your grand gesture to the American people for not doing your job. Somehow your speech writer needs to reword a few things. Plus the fact that Romney spent the whole time just adding fuel to the fire about possible lobbying with facts, Gingrich's resignation as Speaker of the House making history, and Gingrich's possible inside information on the housing market collapse was enough to just remind me of a reality show.
Honestly, I feel that a "win" like this for Romney came to easily. Debates like these shouldn't be formatted to beat on one another's resume or whereabouts like an episode of Gossip Girl or 90210. But should be geared to asking questions like: "What are your proposals on being free of foreign oil and becoming more independent on renewable energy? When will there be less budget cuts for education because that's where the job market can be influenced? etc." CNN wants to know why less and less people are tuning into these debates; I have an answer. When a political debate reminds me of a reality show where Governors are just bashing on each other, it makes people more depressed about America's politics and government. This reminds people that they are missing a good episode of Jersey Shore or the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. So did anyone "win" a debate, if the majority of the U.S. is watching a reality show instead of trying to figure out what to do with our government, economy, or treasury?
The issues are highly personal. These men are putting their budgets and voting records and business history on the line. I believe that Romney stayed evenly toned and calm. Gengrich got a bit emotional and interrupted speaking points. Yet there was accusing tone and rhetoric usage. Like “distressful resignation, lobbying, consulting work.” Both men raised their voice and good points. I believe that Romney won because his point came across as strait forward and factual. His mild tone and close body gestures gave him the cool calm and collected vote. Prepaired speakers always look better on camera.
While watching the video, I got the impression that Mitt Romney won over Newt Gingrich. But, I don’t believe this particular instance will really hurt Newt like Rick Perry’s debate mistakes hurt him. Romney did point out some flaws in Gingrich, but Gingrich was able to defend himself and defend the accusations and claims being made about him. He maintained his composure and stayed strong as Mitt attacked him. It showed he handles situations like this well, and that is definitely a quality a potential presidential candidate should possess. With that being said, I still feel that Mitt won because he stayed on top of it and in the offensive position. He controlled the conversation and debate, and instilled a little bit of doubt, if not more, in the audience. I think it is hard to determine whether or not this is good or bad for American politics. Of course, public discourse is important and advances our country and policies. But with so many debates that the American public now has the ability to view on TV and on the Internet, it makes it easier for less important issues to gain attention and spark discussion. Rather than sticking to important topics, often times today’s politicians attack one another in hopes that the others’ reputation will be hurt if the video goes viral. All in all though, I would say debates are better than the alternative. It is a good way to see how poised and composed candidates are, and how they react in stressful situations. And having the debates viewable enables the voters to get to know the candidate much more extensively before they cast their vote.
I think Mitt won this exchange. I believe this is the case because it seemed that Newt was on the defensive. The tone of Newt’s voice sounded like he was making excuses. He had also been attacked in an earlier debate on this same subject of him ‘consulting’ for Freddie Mac where his response wasn’t very good either. He was actually laughed at when he first tried to pass his consulting off as anything other than peddling influence. At least this time he wasn’t laughed at by the audience; however, on this topic in particular, I get the feeling from the way Newt handles these questions that he feels very defensive on the subject. Another reason I believe Mitt won this exchange is because of how Newt handled the attack. He tried to talk over Mitt. This made me feel that he was insecure in his actions being legitimate. I feel if he truly believed he was in the right, he could have calmly waited to respond, but he didn’t wait to respond and instead tried to talk over Mitt in denying that his actions were wrong. I think this kind of exchange is good for American Politics. I think every dark secret a politician has should be constantly revealed and talked about. I think holding back on aggressive ads or exchanges like this hurts the party and is a disservice to the American people. Every voter should be able to see everything that a presidential candidate has done in the past that might reflect badly on him. I think Reagan’s eleventh commandment that a Republican shouldn’t attack each other does a lot of harm to the integrity of presidential candidates. I believe every candidate for president should have everything negative in his past brought out into the public spotlight so that a voter has as much information as possible to make an informed vote.
I believe that Mitt Romney won the exchange because he presented his points against Newt Gingrich clearly and Gingrich was unable to successfully refute those points. This exchange was good for American politics because it demonstrated a strong negative side to Gingrich that would not surface from his own campaign. Also, the exchange may have attacked the character of Gingrich but it was a very relevant attack. It was not an attack into Gingrich’s personal life/affairs but his political life. However, this type of exchange can be bad for American politics because of the attack upon another candidates’ character. Essentially, it is a form of mudslinging and contains the possibility of being abused. Also, this type of exchange emits the implied statement, “I (being Romney in this case) am not as bad as that guy (Gingrich)” when a politician should be demonstrating why they are good and not why the competition is bad.
In my opinion, I believe that Mitt Ramney won this debate that was shown. Speaker Gingrich seemed to have his back against a wall. Gingrich may of had facts about what he has does with healthcare and lobbying, but Ramney had statistics and facts to fight back at speaker Gingrich. I also thought that in the beginning of the video Gingrich says that he dropped out due to some problems to do better thing and that he is now more comfortable working with a Democratic candidate than before.
In the second part of the debate the candidates were asked about lobbying. Ramney attacked Gingrich on the grounds that he was making millions of dollars with Freddie Mac while people in Florida were losing millions of dollars. Right after Gingrich attacks back at Ramney saying he did nothing wrong and that he has been running around the state saying false accusations. I think that both presidential candidates are good, but I think that speaker Ramney and speaker Gingrich sometimes go at each other and attack to much. I think that in a debate you have to be defensive, but you also can have an excessive amount of arguing that may not be what the citizens want for president.
In this clip it clearly shows "Mitt" did his homework and was ready to take Newt out with vengeance. Mitt was ready at every answer and back lash Newt had to offer. In viewing this debate what was a more than TWO people debate clearly showed the competition between Newt and Mitt. While during the debate at some points it was childish behavior to interrupt each other and play the blame game onto other, or others. I wanted to show more of the other candidates that have shown, done are even argued over the same issues that Newt and Mitt were. This particular scene argued for lobbying for health care while being paid by companies, maybe Mitt has something to hide too? Mitt was strong and came out guns blazing ready to fire while Newt was just warming up. Mitt also discredits Newt by his time in office as a disgrace in doing so made Newt turn hostile and embarrassed. Mitt kept calm and new what he had to say and do to make sure that his views of Newt were heard.
In this exchange I believe that Romney won the argument without a doubt. Unfortunately for Newt he was unable to really counter or defend himself against Romney’s attacks. Newt’s poor excuse that it is our “right as an American” was only to try and not make himself look so bad. Although Romney won that argument, I don’t believe that anyone would be able to defend themselves in that situation. Romney, himself, would have look equally as bad if the situation was reversed. Is this good for politics? For Romney this could be viewed as a good thing and a bad thing. He clearly won the debate and is all he is really looking for. On the other hand, he could be viewed as a dirty opponent and could also face a similar attack later on. For Newt this was unfortunately very bad. He will not be able to really recover from this but will, I am sure of it, be better prepared for such attacks next time. As for politics, as a whole, it isn’t really a good thing only because it portrays how one will say and/or do anything to get people to sway one way or another. It seems unhealthy to teach that in my opinion.
In my opinion Mitt Romney won this “exchange.” The reason I believe Romney won is, because he calls Newt Gingrich out about when he lobbied for Freddie Mac. Gingrich said that he left the team he was working with but Romney goes to call him out saying that his own team members voted him out to replace him; eighty-eight percent of Republicans voted to reprimand the speaker. Romney stated that Gingrich was the first speaker in history to resign (in disgrace). Gingrich talks about how he was supposed to do “consulting work” and said he did not consider that lobbying. Romney shoots back with “When Freddie Mac was getting America in a position where we would have a massive housing collapse, you could have spoken out aggressively, you could have spoken out a way that these guys are wrong or this needs to end, but instead you were being paid by them; you were making over a million dollars at the same time people in Florida were being hurt by millions of dollars.” In this instance, Romney has just called Gingrich out and Gingrich looks embarrassed and guilty and all he can respond with is “that’s not true.” At this point of the debate I feel like Romney definitely did a good job of digging up dirt and leaving Gingrich speechless.
In my opinion, I think it is a good type of exchange for American politics, because it lets the public know the history behind their opponents that you would not necessarily know otherwise. On a side note, I do not think that the candidates should only stay focused on beating up on each other after all; they ARE all going against the Democratic Party (Obama). All in all, it helps to inform the public about the opposing candidates and it helps to understand the truth behind their motives. In the past maybe individuals have heard things here or there about candidates, but usually individuals forget if it has been a while. It helps people like me who are not as informed about the running candidates’ history and current/past views. Therefore, I think it is good for American politics to bring issues like Romney has done in this video to the public's attention.
I believe without a doubt that Mitt Romney ran this exchange with Newt Gingrich. Most of the debate, Romney was throwing out fact after fact about Gingrich and Gingrich continued to attempt to defend himself but, his responses were filled with hesitation and not very powerful. Romney came into this particular debate with all his facts and credentials lined up. He seemed much more prepared than Gingrich appeared to be. Gingrich also seemed very uncomfortable with all of the things Romney was stating and did not do a very good job on containing his composure. His emotions were written all over his face whereas Romney was very calm and composed during the exchange for the most part.
I feel that Mitt won this exchange because of his calm, collected attitude backed by his sharp words that Gingrich seemed to struggle with. I believe this type of exchange is good for american politics because it gets the skeletons out of the closet and brings the dirt on each candidate to light. In such a circumstance as this (the primary) it will be beneficial in the long run because I feel it will teach the future nominee to respond to claims like this. I feel it is also beneficial because it brings issues to light in a forum where candidates have a chance to defend themselves in front of voters, rather than in smearing advertisements commonly seen today.
I believe that Governor Romney won the exchange, because he was more prepared with his speech. I feel like Romney was the won perusing Gingrich the whole debate and Gringrich was just trying to play defense I feel that this is a very good candidate for Republicans because he is very sharp and calm when he debates. In my opinion I feel the winning point for Romney was when he raised the point of Gringrich resigning as Speaker first time ever in history. As voters stop and think about this if a man can’t handle Speaker what makes him worthy enough to run for President? . After this point was brought up the rest of the debate Gringrich did not feel comfortable on stage and with his reactions we may assume that things that Romney brought up may be true. With these statements being brought up it helps the public know about Gringrich weaknesses in the race, as we all know running for president they cannot show any weakness in fear of their opponent using it against them.
In my opinion Mitt Romney won the debate, but not by much. Governor Romney attacked Speaker Gingrich for lobbying his own congressmen to obtain both financial and political gains in return. Romney scored points by asserting himself as a "fair & just" canidate who offered alternative actions to the Speaker for the situation he attacked him on. Well played by the Governor. I agree that this is infact good for American politics. For a canidate, it is better to deal withh these negative issues now, rather than sweep them under the rug only to have them bite you in the butt during the general when the other party isn't taking prisoners. Even though I agree that this is good for American politics (in this instance), however, in general I reserve the right to say that I do not support negative campains. If all the canidate is substanance-wise is to be better than the canidate his is attacking, it is a shame. That means that all he/she has to be is better than the other canidate rather than being themselves and running on a core philosophy instead of running on a theme of being better than your opposition's negative attributes. I understand the need for negativity when we are this far into a party primary, it is either now or never and if they don't pull the cards out now the Democrats will during the general. It is sad that American politics has come to this but EVERYONE has skeletons in the closet and if you're running for President of the United States those bones will be examined & critiqued by everyone, especially the "experts" in the media!
I feel that Mitt won this exchange because of his calm attitude and his sharp and well pre-paired words. Gingrich did not have the same approach, he seemed as if he were struggling. This type of exchange is good for american politics because it brings everything in to the light. These debates will be beneficial in the long run because I feel it will teach the future nominee to respond better and feel more prepared. This also is very helpful because it gives these candidates the chance to defend themselves when issues are bought up. believe that Romney, hands down, won this exchange. The reason i believe this to be true is how Romney kept getting Gingrich stuck on questions, where he would try to windle his way out. Also, Romney had his facts straight on everything which made him seem so much more prepared.
31 comments:
I believe that Governor Romney ‘wins’ in this exchange. Speaker Gingrich says he resigned as Speaker because the goals and results that were received were not as good as they should have been; he said that he took a leadership position and resigned from Speaker to do other things. Romney digs down to the truth of why Gingrich actually left. Romney points out that the Speaker resigned under bad terms with Republicans, and that he was the only Speaker in history to actually resign.
Brian Williams asks Gingrich about ‘lobbying’ and he responds about his consulting work with Freddie Mac. There should be no problem with any citizen to take part in consulting with any firm, but it doesn’t look good for Gingrich to have been consulting with Freddie Mac because of the recent situation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Romney says that Gingrich made money from consulting with Freddie Mac because he took advantage as a Washington insider when he should have been offering advice on how to help the housing market and not cashing in over $300,000.
The attacks from the Republican party on each candidate creates discussion for which candidate is fit for the nomination. It creates a great debate for which candidate should run against President Obama. I also believe it will hurt the Republican party down the road in the general election; Attacking from within the party doesn’t sound like the best idea when trying to win back the presidency.
I believe that Romney, hands down, won this exchange. The reason i believe this to be true is how Romney kept slamming Gingrich with back up comments as Gingrich tried to "weasel" his way out of it with replies to try to save himself along with his reputation as a republican candidate. Also, Romney had his facts straight and was trying to "get down" to business by bringing what needed to be done. This however is not good for American Politics, reason being that that there is tension and disagreement within the party, in which that is trying to win back the house, which in turn will give the American society a bad image of the republican representative(s).
First I will say that I would fully expect something like this from a group of politicians competing for the Americans vote. However I wish we as American people could still get this drive and determination once they are in office. I almost feel that neither of them won the argument. They both, in their own way, had some good points. I feel as if it wasn’t Mitt v Newt but Mitt beating up on Newt. I do think Mitt had a good point when he called out Newt on his so called “lobbying” and I feel as if maybe Newt was just trying to bend rules. While yes it is an American right, it has to be justified. I think of it kind of as you have the American right to free speech so long as it does not put anybody in physical danger or slander. Of course that all was political hear say from Mitt to the best of my knowledge. Now do I feel that this kind of debate is good for American politics, yes and no. I say yes because it gives the American people an opportunity to see a little bit of how that candidate handles pressure. For example, had Newt fired off and physically hit Mitt for his comments, I don’t feel that Newt would still be in the race. I say no because it almost sounds like a “who really cares” topic that was drug on way to long. So it does have its pros and cons.
I feel that Romney had a very strong point by basing his small argument around lobbying. Lobbying gives off an smell of rich, and pocketing money, and protecting your own interests. Romney repeatedly brought up the word "lobbying" so it will stick in Americans minds. At first it appeared that Romney was simply grasping at straws by saying Newt is the only Speaker that was forced out, and while Newt clearly fought back against that by painting a picture of how he felt he wasn't good enough. Newt was trying to paint himself as a stand-up guy that he knows when to step down. That backfired on him because Romney brought up how Newt could have spoken out more and could have been more persistent to get things done. I think this exchange is good for politics because it's real-life facts and whenever solid points are thrown out it can really sway the voters. I think arrguments like these can show flaws in candidates, but it is a double-edged sword because candidates have to be able to accept flaws being pointed out about their own character and their own history. Newt Gingrich knew that "lobbying" would be harmful to his public image, so he tried to play out that Romney was saying stuff that was untrue, and that Romney was making false statements. Arguments like these can show a candidate's slyness and ability to refute false statements. The key things to take away from this small argument is lobbying, and not willing to do enough to make a change. These points will be stongly cemented into voter's minds and make it seem that maybe Newt Gingrich will not do enough, as president, to make a difference in America.
In my opinion, I believe that Newt Gingrich had his back against the wall in this exchange. Mitt Romney pressured Gingrich the whole time by the way he handled being the Speaker of the House. One reason that Romney won was because of the facts and data that were provided throughout the whole video. Facts such as 88% of republicans reprimanded Newt Gingrich as he resigned in disgrace. Also, Mitt pointed out to the audience that this was the first time in America that the Speaker of the House had resigned. Another reason as to why Romney “won” the exchange was because of the body language and the non-verbal’s used by Newt Gingrich. Whether Newt was embarrassed or angry, he looked guilty from the beginning. His face turned bright red, he stuttered, and couldn’t keep still. This had guilty written all over it! On the other hand Mitt Romney stayed very calm and patient. He spoke very clearly and kept his composure unlike Gingrich. This very well could be the turning point for Mitt in this election. He grabbed the audience’s attention about the housing problems that occurred while Newt was a speaker in the house, and basically scolded him as to how he was part of the problem. He said instead of doing anything he was just making millions during his tenure and letting everything fall apart, which made Newt lose even more credibility.
This exchange is a prime example of what is going on in the current congress and we get to see first-hand what is going on Capitol Hill. The American public is tired of seeing this type of in-fighting amongst candidates, and representatives, this is not helping to move America in the direction we need to be going. During this exchange we see that Mitt Romney came into this debate ready to mudsling at Newt, and Newt did his best to address the accusations as they were presented but became frustrated by Mitt’s continuous accusations. We also can take note that Mitt is really jumping from one accusation to the next without really giving a segway into the next, or without the topic first being addressed. In my opinion I think Newt won that exchange. Mitt just came in ready to attack and did so, to the extent that the accusations were about topics that were not already brought forward. Newt did his best to contain his composure and address the issues as they were presented. Newt’s frustration boiled over when the topic of Freddie Mac and Newt’s “lobbyist activities” were brought up. Mitt Romney also had investments with Freddie Mac, and I believe that is where Mitt begins to lose the exchange, because it is there that it turns to mudslinging.
I believe that in this exchange Romney clearly owned the stage in terms of speech domination which is a good trait for the president. But, I got a sense of exaggeration in some of his accusations toward Gingrich which may have been prepared prior to the debate. Since his argument was entirely focused on attacking his opponent rather than stating his flaws and following it with how he personally has done or will do better in the future, I believe that this exchange is bad for American Politics. Yes, it is a competition, but what does this kind of behavior say about how he will act as president? Should we assume that if there is a flood on our coast he will simply blame it on God and continue to go on about God’s flaws? Or maybe he will exaggerate the situation further and blame it on a new technology China has developed to send tragic storms to other countries. And in both of these scenarios, based on his debating style he will continue to point and place blame while failing to send aid to his countrymen. I guess if we can assume such embellished stories are true you could also assume he does not care if they live, because if they are alive they will probably not vote for him again, but if they are dead they cannot vote at all. I am exaggerating of course, but only to show how bloated some of the statements have or could have become in most political debates. I believe both candidates have good potential for a shot at the presidency, but I challenge voters to look past the trash and cash thrown into the debates and elections and look deeper into the candidates life prior to politics and see what he stood for and what he did and then look at his more recent resume. If you know where someone has come from and where they have gone thus far, you can better predict where they will be going in the future.
First, I believe Governor Romney wins in this exchange, no question about it. Newt lied about how he left the speaker and Romney was the one that told the truth about it. He did take responsibility in leaving the speaker's position but he was forced out by his own political party. Romney said 88% of Republicans wanted him out. That's not good for a republican candidate who is running for office. I agree with Romney, that Newt didn't leave happy but in disgrace. Just hearing that, I don't understand why he would want to run for president. I wouldn't want my president to ever to be voted out of office. Even by the same party he running as president on. Romney also won when he said that Newt took the side of Freddy Mac. A man that a lot of American people don't like. I liked when Romney said that Newt was being paid millions by the same person getting Americans to pay them millions. If I had a house and paying money to Freddie Mac, I wouldn't want my president wanting him to do that and getting paid more than me to have it happen. At the same time, being happy that my house might be foreclosed. Romney defiantly won by a landslide.
I believe it's good for American politics. Americans should know the facts about each candidate, instead of lies they tell. Especially when they talk about reason's why they leave public office or about issues like American homes.
I believe that Mitt Romney won this exchange because Newt Gringrich didn't seem to have much to back himself up. Gringrich's story was easily broken down once Romney started stating facts about how the republican party voted him out of office. Gringrich literally lied and said that he chose to leave when the facts clearly show he was voted out of office. I feel like Gringrich made himself look foolish because instead of being honest and facing the facts of the situation he twisted them in his favor. To me this was a horrible idea when running for such a high office, of course his competitor is going to find dirt on him and use it to bring him down.
Also Romney brings up a very good point about Gringrich having an opportunity to stand up to up against the housing collapse and how he didn't take the opportunity to stand up against it.
I feel like this is an example of good American politics because they are pointing out facts of what they do and using that to show the true character of the candidate.
Besides the information that is discussed in the first 2:23 of the video, the type of back and forth composure of Mitt and Newt indicates that Mitt Romney wins this exchange. Mitt is composed and on the offense stating facts and placing Newt under pressure. Newt stammers and is having to defend himself.
This type of exchange is good for American politics. It allows for viewers to see the reactions of candidates to pressure.
While I was watching this exchange in real time during the actual debate, I did not think there was a clear winner here. The way this clip has been edited and pieced together on the other hand, makes it seem that Gingrich was clearly on the offensive, and I could see how many might view him as abrasive because of this exchange. This certainly helped Romney to appear to be “more electable”, even if the reality of the Obama campaign theme says otherwise.
Regardless of who won this particular exchange, I believe the American people are the real winners of this exchange. Throughout this debate season, they have seen candidates at their best, and certainly seen them at their worst as well. It is good that controversial issues are brought up in settings like this, even when they may not be wholly true. Voters should understand that candidates are going to throw barbs, as has been done in politics since the inception of the idea. It is the responsibility of the voters to take the ideas brought up in exchanges like this and do their own research into what is true and what is not. If someone solely makes their decision based on what one candidate says about the other, then that shows their ignorance and inability to think with reason. This is how the process works, and ultimately the Republican nominee that faces the Obama Billion dollar re-election campaign had better be prepared for many more mudslinging contests and testy exchanges with the president. These debates should be good practice in that respect.
Based on this video, I believe it is fairly obvious that Romney was the winner. Gingrich spent the debate playing defence. Though playing defense isn't an automatic loss, Gingrich didn't exactly play defence well. When presented with Romney's accusation of lobbying, Gingrich did a good job of explaining the difference between "lobbying" and "public advocacy"... until Romney cornered him with his own definition. Gingrich did a good job of speaking, but Romney did a good job of debating, which tends to be good during a debate.
Despite differences in opinion, this is a great thing for American politics. The debate process allows the American people to see what the candidates are capable of doing when presented with a situation that isn't ideal. This, in a sense, is the also the way the candidates would act if they were in office when something pressing happens. It also allows people to learn something about the candidates that hasn't been filtered through numerous campaign personnel. It may be one of the only times where complete truth reaches the American people.
The debate has to be separated into two separate parts in order to fully understand the true winner of the small portion of the debate. First, you have to look at the tone/body language of each speaker, and secondly the actual arguments themselves. It’s important to look at the tone/body language separately, because doing so allows you to see the speaker’s feelings about what they are saying. Moreover, separating the speech into these two parts allows you to look past the speaker’s outer exterior and look at the basis of the argumentation itself. It’s very clear that Romney is the more confident speakers of the two, and is especially more believable in his delivery and style. Confidence alone could lead many listeners alone to believe what is being said to be true, or that the debate was won at that point. I found that outside of confidence of Romney and the defensive tactics of Gingrich, the facts are were the main factor in the debate’s winner. After looking at the factual arguments, Romney in my opinion wins the debate on a sole argument at the beginning of the clip. Romney points out that members of his own congressional team wanted to remove Gingrich, and 88% of republicans voted to reprimand him which ultimately lead to his resignation. With this key argument Romney exposes his lack of popularity among the higher officials, but also that he resigned from the position, a trait no president should exhibit. Even with circumstances outside of our understanding, Gingrich did not do a good job of defending himself, and debate is about winning the presented arguments. Thus, Romney wins the debate. This exchange is good for American politics, because the two candidates must argue and expose each other’s weaknesses on a national stage, allowing citizens to make a more educated decision.
I want to go ahead and answer the second question regarding whether or not its bad for American politics, and in my opinion I believe this hurts both candidates and it hurts the view of our political system. I believe both of these men get off track of the real issues in which they having the debate in the first place, which is to talk about the ways these candidates can improve our country by the decisions they believe in. Not to call each other out on national television and play the who did what game. However, in our current political system the popular thing to do is to downplay the other candidates and make others look good. I do believe however it is necessary to bring past actions up just so people can get a idea of what that candidate were thinking at that particular time.
To answer the first question about who won the exchange, I believe Romney threw some pretty tough words towards Newt and made him seem pretty pathetic. I thought Romney had the confidence and the stern demeanor to throw Newt off a little bit.
During the debate it was clear to me that Mitt Romney won in the exchange. He put Newt Gringrich on the spot several times throughout the debate. Romney commented on many issues he disagreed with Newt on. For example, when Romney questioned Newt about his position of Speaker of the House. Romney mentioned how Newt could have spoken up more during his time in this position. I believe Romney’s criticism of Newt definitely benefited him during the debate. Although his strategy did work, It makes me question why that was his main objective. Overall Romney did a better job debating his arguments, whereas Newt just explained his viewpoints.
For America I believe this exchange is very beneficial. It helps society see the ideas and beliefs of the candidates. It lets America take an opinion for themselves of what they believe in. Also, people who were not aware of the candidates can now become more involved throughout the election. The debate made me more aware of the candidates running, and I am excited to see what more the election has coming.
I believe that anybody familiar with rhetoric would undoubtedly say that Governor Romney won this exchange. He presented his ideas in a "matter-of-fact" way. By appealing to the audience utilizing this approach it really made it hard for Gingrich to combat anything what Romney stated. The only thing Gingrich could do was get all defensive and start talking about how it was "false" yet offered no evidence in his rebuttal , therefore showing a potentially crippling weakness. Romney picked through issues that I believe everyday people need to know. although many people do not pay attention to politics, I think it is very significant to point out the fact that his own party voted him out.
As to the matter of whether this type of exchange is good or bad for American politics, I could honestly say that this is exactly the type of politics we need. It has been historically recorded that people’s knowledge of the lesser known roles in government has been decreasing ever so steeply. Knowing this, these type of debates play a vital role in getting the everyday average American blue collar worker educated about potential candidates. Moderators, such as Brian Williams, have, in effect, a unannounced duty to fill these gaps for the American people. It is only when the strait forward hard hitting questions are asked, can the average American actually understand where each candidate is coming from. The most amazing thing I love about being in a democracy is that there is a winner and there is a loser; and that loser has to agree to lose, in this case, Romney won and presented himself as the clear-cut, logical choice for the candidate. When it mattered, Gingrich didn’t deliver and it’s only when faced with controversy does person’s true character show.
Governor Romney "wins" this exchange of debate. However, I tread carefully on the word of "win."
It scares me to think that Gingrich "resigned" as Speaker of the House because he wasn't seeing as good as results as he initially thought they were going to be, when he took the position. When he said that results weren’t happening, he was doing a service to resign as the speaker, my question is: "What are you going to do when you don't see the results you promised the American people? Resign as President?" So honestly, Gingrich lost the debate as soon as he said that. I mean what are you doing running for the United States President, when that came out of your mouth as your grand gesture to the American people for not doing your job. Somehow your speech writer needs to reword a few things. Plus the fact that Romney spent the whole time just adding fuel to the fire about possible lobbying with facts, Gingrich's resignation as Speaker of the House making history, and Gingrich's possible inside information on the housing market collapse was enough to just remind me of a reality show.
Honestly, I feel that a "win" like this for Romney came to easily. Debates like these shouldn't be formatted to beat on one another's resume or whereabouts like an episode of Gossip Girl or 90210. But should be geared to asking questions like: "What are your proposals on being free of foreign oil and becoming more independent on renewable energy? When will there be less budget cuts for education because that's where the job market can be influenced? etc." CNN wants to know why less and less people are tuning into these debates; I have an answer. When a political debate reminds me of a reality show where Governors are just bashing on each other, it makes people more depressed about America's politics and government. This reminds people that they are missing a good episode of Jersey Shore or the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. So did anyone "win" a debate, if the majority of the U.S. is watching a reality show instead of trying to figure out what to do with our government, economy, or treasury?
The issues are highly personal. These men are putting their budgets and voting records and business history on the line. I believe that Romney stayed evenly toned and calm. Gengrich got a bit emotional and interrupted speaking points. Yet there was accusing tone and rhetoric usage. Like “distressful resignation, lobbying, consulting work.” Both men raised their voice and good points. I believe that Romney won because his point came across as strait forward and factual. His mild tone and close body gestures gave him the cool calm and collected vote. Prepaired speakers always look better on camera.
While watching the video, I got the impression that Mitt Romney won over Newt Gingrich. But, I don’t believe this particular instance will really hurt Newt like Rick Perry’s debate mistakes hurt him. Romney did point out some flaws in Gingrich, but Gingrich was able to defend himself and defend the accusations and claims being made about him. He maintained his composure and stayed strong as Mitt attacked him. It showed he handles situations like this well, and that is definitely a quality a potential presidential candidate should possess. With that being said, I still feel that Mitt won because he stayed on top of it and in the offensive position. He controlled the conversation and debate, and instilled a little bit of doubt, if not more, in the audience. I think it is hard to determine whether or not this is good or bad for American politics. Of course, public discourse is important and advances our country and policies. But with so many debates that the American public now has the ability to view on TV and on the Internet, it makes it easier for less important issues to gain attention and spark discussion. Rather than sticking to important topics, often times today’s politicians attack one another in hopes that the others’ reputation will be hurt if the video goes viral. All in all though, I would say debates are better than the alternative. It is a good way to see how poised and composed candidates are, and how they react in stressful situations. And having the debates viewable enables the voters to get to know the candidate much more extensively before they cast their vote.
I think Mitt won this exchange. I believe this is the case because it seemed that Newt was on the defensive. The tone of Newt’s voice sounded like he was making excuses. He had also been attacked in an earlier debate on this same subject of him ‘consulting’ for Freddie Mac where his response wasn’t very good either. He was actually laughed at when he first tried to pass his consulting off as anything other than peddling influence. At least this time he wasn’t laughed at by the audience; however, on this topic in particular, I get the feeling from the way Newt handles these questions that he feels very defensive on the subject. Another reason I believe Mitt won this exchange is because of how Newt handled the attack. He tried to talk over Mitt. This made me feel that he was insecure in his actions being legitimate. I feel if he truly believed he was in the right, he could have calmly waited to respond, but he didn’t wait to respond and instead tried to talk over Mitt in denying that his actions were wrong.
I think this kind of exchange is good for American Politics. I think every dark secret a politician has should be constantly revealed and talked about. I think holding back on aggressive ads or exchanges like this hurts the party and is a disservice to the American people. Every voter should be able to see everything that a presidential candidate has done in the past that might reflect badly on him. I think Reagan’s eleventh commandment that a Republican shouldn’t attack each other does a lot of harm to the integrity of presidential candidates. I believe every candidate for president should have everything negative in his past brought out into the public spotlight so that a voter has as much information as possible to make an informed vote.
I believe that Mitt Romney won the exchange because he presented his points against Newt Gingrich clearly and Gingrich was unable to successfully refute those points.
This exchange was good for American politics because it demonstrated a strong negative side to Gingrich that would not surface from his own campaign. Also, the exchange may have attacked the character of Gingrich but it was a very relevant attack. It was not an attack into Gingrich’s personal life/affairs but his political life. However, this type of exchange can be bad for American politics because of the attack upon another candidates’ character. Essentially, it is a form of mudslinging and contains the possibility of being abused. Also, this type of exchange emits the implied statement, “I (being Romney in this case) am not as bad as that guy (Gingrich)” when a politician should be demonstrating why they are good and not why the competition is bad.
In my opinion, I believe that Mitt Ramney won this debate that was shown. Speaker Gingrich seemed to have his back against a wall. Gingrich may of had facts about what he has does with healthcare and lobbying, but Ramney had statistics and facts to fight back at speaker Gingrich. I also thought that in the beginning of the video Gingrich says that he dropped out due to some problems to do better thing and that he is now more comfortable working with a Democratic candidate than before.
In the second part of the debate the candidates were asked about lobbying. Ramney attacked Gingrich on the grounds that he was making millions of dollars with Freddie Mac while people in Florida were losing millions of dollars. Right after Gingrich attacks back at Ramney saying he did nothing wrong and that he has been running around the state saying false accusations. I think that both presidential candidates are good, but I think that speaker Ramney and speaker Gingrich sometimes go at each other and attack to much. I think that in a debate you have to be defensive, but you also can have an excessive amount of arguing that may not be what the citizens want for president.
In this clip it clearly shows "Mitt" did his homework and was ready to take Newt out with vengeance. Mitt was ready at every answer and back lash Newt had to offer. In viewing this debate what was a more than TWO people debate clearly showed the competition between Newt and Mitt. While during the debate at some points it was childish behavior to interrupt each other and play the blame game onto other, or others. I wanted to show more of the other candidates that have shown, done are even argued over the same issues that Newt and Mitt were. This particular scene argued for lobbying for health care while being paid by companies, maybe Mitt has something to hide too? Mitt was strong and came out guns blazing ready to fire while Newt was just warming up. Mitt also discredits Newt by his time in office as a disgrace in doing so made Newt turn hostile and embarrassed. Mitt kept calm and new what he had to say and do to make sure that his views of Newt were heard.
In this exchange I believe that Romney won the argument without a doubt. Unfortunately for Newt he was unable to really counter or defend himself against Romney’s attacks. Newt’s poor excuse that it is our “right as an American” was only to try and not make himself look so bad. Although Romney won that argument, I don’t believe that anyone would be able to defend themselves in that situation. Romney, himself, would have look equally as bad if the situation was reversed.
Is this good for politics? For Romney this could be viewed as a good thing and a bad thing. He clearly won the debate and is all he is really looking for. On the other hand, he could be viewed as a dirty opponent and could also face a similar attack later on. For Newt this was unfortunately very bad. He will not be able to really recover from this but will, I am sure of it, be better prepared for such attacks next time. As for politics, as a whole, it isn’t really a good thing only because it portrays how one will say and/or do anything to get people to sway one way or another. It seems unhealthy to teach that in my opinion.
In my opinion Mitt Romney won this “exchange.” The reason I believe Romney won is, because he calls Newt Gingrich out about when he lobbied for Freddie Mac. Gingrich said that he left the team he was working with but Romney goes to call him out saying that his own team members voted him out to replace him; eighty-eight percent of Republicans voted to reprimand the speaker. Romney stated that Gingrich was the first speaker in history to resign (in disgrace). Gingrich talks about how he was supposed to do “consulting work” and said he did not consider that lobbying. Romney shoots back with “When Freddie Mac was getting America in a position where we would have a massive housing collapse, you could have spoken out aggressively, you could have spoken out a way that these guys are wrong or this needs to end, but instead you were being paid by them; you were making over a million dollars at the same time people in Florida were being hurt by millions of dollars.” In this instance, Romney has just called Gingrich out and Gingrich looks embarrassed and guilty and all he can respond with is “that’s not true.” At this point of the debate I feel like Romney definitely did a good job of digging up dirt and leaving Gingrich speechless.
In my opinion, I think it is a good type of exchange for American politics, because it lets the public know the history behind their opponents that you would not necessarily know otherwise. On a side note, I do not think that the candidates should only stay focused on beating up on each other after all; they ARE all going against the Democratic Party (Obama). All in all, it helps to inform the public about the opposing candidates and it helps to understand the truth behind their motives. In the past maybe individuals have heard things here or there about candidates, but usually individuals forget if it has been a while. It helps people like me who are not as informed about the running candidates’ history and current/past views. Therefore, I think it is good for American politics to bring issues like Romney has done in this video to the public's attention.
I believe without a doubt that Mitt Romney ran this exchange with Newt Gingrich. Most of the debate, Romney was throwing out fact after fact about Gingrich and Gingrich continued to attempt to defend himself but, his responses were filled with hesitation and not very powerful. Romney came into this particular debate with all his facts and credentials lined up. He seemed much more prepared than Gingrich appeared to be. Gingrich also seemed very uncomfortable with all of the things Romney was stating and did not do a very good job on containing his composure. His emotions were written all over his face whereas Romney was very calm and composed during the exchange for the most part.
I feel that Mitt won this exchange because of his calm, collected attitude backed by his sharp words that Gingrich seemed to struggle with. I believe this type of exchange is good for american politics because it gets the skeletons out of the closet and brings the dirt on each candidate to light. In such a circumstance as this (the primary) it will be beneficial in the long run because I feel it will teach the future nominee to respond to claims like this. I feel it is also beneficial because it brings issues to light in a forum where candidates have a chance to defend themselves in front of voters, rather than in smearing advertisements commonly seen today.
I believe that Governor Romney won the exchange, because he was more prepared with his speech. I feel like Romney was the won perusing Gingrich the whole debate and Gringrich was just trying to play defense I feel that this is a very good candidate for Republicans because he is very sharp and calm when he debates. In my opinion I feel the winning point for Romney was when he raised the point of Gringrich resigning as Speaker first time ever in history. As voters stop and think about this if a man can’t handle Speaker what makes him worthy enough to run for President? . After this point was brought up the rest of the debate Gringrich did not feel comfortable on stage and with his reactions we may assume that things that Romney brought up may be true. With these statements being brought up it helps the public know about Gringrich weaknesses in the race, as we all know running for president they cannot show any weakness in fear of their opponent using it against them.
In my opinion Mitt Romney won the debate, but not by much. Governor Romney attacked Speaker Gingrich for lobbying his own congressmen to obtain both financial and political gains in return. Romney scored points by asserting himself as a "fair & just" canidate who offered alternative actions to the Speaker for the situation he attacked him on. Well played by the Governor.
I agree that this is infact good for American politics. For a canidate, it is better to deal withh these negative issues now, rather than sweep them under the rug only to have them bite you in the butt during the general when the other party isn't taking prisoners. Even though I agree that this is good for American politics (in this instance), however, in general I reserve the right to say that I do not support negative campains. If all the canidate is substanance-wise is to be better than the canidate his is attacking, it is a shame. That means that all he/she has to be is better than the other canidate rather than being themselves and running on a core philosophy instead of running on a theme of being better than your opposition's negative attributes. I understand the need for negativity when we are this far into a party primary, it is either now or never and if they don't pull the cards out now the Democrats will during the general. It is sad that American politics has come to this but EVERYONE has skeletons in the closet and if you're running for President of the United States those bones will be examined & critiqued by everyone, especially the "experts" in the media!
I feel that Mitt won this exchange because of his calm attitude and his sharp and well pre-paired words. Gingrich did not have the same approach, he seemed as if he were struggling. This type of exchange is good for american politics because it brings everything in to the light. These debates will be beneficial in the long run because I feel it will teach the future nominee to respond better and feel more prepared. This also is very helpful because it gives these candidates the chance to defend themselves when issues are bought up. believe that Romney, hands down, won this exchange. The reason i believe this to be true is how Romney kept getting Gingrich stuck on questions, where he would try to windle his way out. Also, Romney had his facts straight on everything which made him seem so much more prepared.
Post a Comment