1. Please view the following Fact Check website and comment on ONE of the fact check points: "establish your view of the fact and state your opinion on the misonception by the candidate."
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/
2. Please view this YouTube clip in entirety and explain if you believe this is an appropriate role for the moderator.
1.In regards to Obama claiming that Romney had called wind-powered jobs “imaginary” when he was actually speaking of an “imaginary world” in which wind and solar panels could power the economy is a mistake if looked at in a certain way. To call wind-power jobs imaginary means that they are completely impossible, which is not true, it's just that they cannot support an economy. Romney, in saying that it would be imaginary to have such a world that could support the economy using wind and solar power, which is true because, at the moment, wind and solar power are inefficient and ineffective, especially in the US.
ReplyDelete2.I do not believe that the role portrayed by the moderator in that debate was appropriate. The reason being that she took a side in the argument and spoke her own opinion, when in reality she shouldn't be saying anything except siphoning off time to the candidates.
1) The fact check on Romney about lowering taxes for the top 1% during the GOP and now saying there will be no tax cuts for the top 1% as he runs for president, was his plan that got him to be the republican nomination. This is a political strategy that gets him to have both the far right voters and the more moderate voters to be on his side when election day comes. I see nothing wrong with his plan, and if it works and he becomes the next President of the United States then how he was able to gain so many votes due to his flexibility will be a political milestone.
ReplyDelete2) This is absolutely ridiculous Candy should have never stepped in and told Romney that he was wrong and that President Obama did in fact say that it was an act of terror. That was to be the job of President Obama to tell Governor Romney that he did in fact say it the day after. The moderator is there to keep the debate rolling and moving it onto the next topic, he or she is not there to side with one of the candidates. Candy was much better then last moderator Jim Lehrer, but she acted outside of her boundaries and that is not acceptable.
1) In response to the auto bailout fact check, I believe the candidates were virtually arguing the same thing. Yes, Mitt Romney believed the companies should go through bankruptcy but also one that is managed with financial aid until the company gets back on its footing. Obama ultimately did the exact same thing by letting the companies go bankrupt and then providing loans and re-organizational advice.
ReplyDelete2) I think Candy completely stepped out of her appropriate boundaries. A moderator should never take a side in the argument; they should only serve to further the discussion. She should have let President Obama refute Romney's statement.
1. Regarding the "Romney said wind power jobs are imaginary" comment: I think that a candidate could have a much more convincing argument by presenting policies to rival those of his (or her, since we're speaking generally) opponent than by arguing semantics and trying to make the opponent look like an idiot. I'm sure Romney is well aware that people currently hold wind energy jobs in the U.S., but I'm also sure that many Americans think he's actually that ignorant (though most of his ignorant comments lie in the social issues, not economics. I digress.)
ReplyDeleteFrom the fact-check site:
Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
I got a bit off-topic, I think. The point I'm trying to make is that scrutinizing an opponent's every quotation and looking for something to call him out on doesn't add any intelligence to the debate; I'd much rather hear them discuss how much the wind industry could stimulate the economy and how likely that "imaginary world" is to be realized.
2. Unpopular opinion here: I think that fact-checking should be allowed during debates (if not by a moderator than perhaps by a separate person or committee appointed for that purpose). Otherwise, the candidates may waste time arguing over who said what when they could be discussing the issues. Also, from the clip above, I do not believe the moderate is guilty of "taking a side," as she acknowledged the correct points of both candidates (Obama was correct in that he did use the phrase "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden, and Romney was correct in that Obama did not use the phrase to directly describe the attack in Libya until two weeks later). I do believe, however, that if the moderator is going to fact-check, he or she has the responsibility to present the evidence in the most neutral manner possible. While I do not believe that the moderator's statements in the above clip presented much bias, I did notice that she was much more tolerant of Obama's talking over her and exceeding the time limit than of Romney's, which did convey a bias.
1)In response to the fact check about an immigration law, I think that this fact shows how the nuances can really change the meaning of what a candidate is saying. I don't like how Obama took Romney's statement out of context because it makes Romney's views on immigration look far more radical. I like the idea of verifying whether a person is a legal citizen. The penalty imposed upon employers will encourage them to higher American citizens and therefore decrease unemployment.
ReplyDelete2)The actions of the moderator were completely inappropriate. Her job as moderator was not to fact check. Instead she was supposed to move the candidates on to the next topic of debate. Instead she acted as a second democratic candidate effectively ganging up on Governor Romney. While she may be a democrat, she has no right to aid Obama in the debate. She is supposed to be impartial. I did think she was better than the previous moderator because she was able to control the candidates.
1. "Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as 'imaginary.' Not true. Romney actually spoke of "an imaginary world" where 'windmills and solar panels could power the economy.'"
ReplyDeleteHere we go again, with Obama taking Romney's words out of context. Barack Obama has lent billions of taxpayer dollars to "green energy" companies, most of which went belly-up (namely Solyndra, a solar panel company that went bankrupt after receiving a $527 million grant from the Obama Administration), and many of the CEOs of these companies are Obama campaign donors. This is cronyism at its worst, and it is grounds for impeachment. Giving taxpayer dollars to your "friends" is despicable, and Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. Mitt Romney recognizes that these forms of "green energy" have not done anything good for the economy -- all they have done if wasted taxpayers dollars. Mitt Romney never said that the solar panels and windmills were "imaginary." He said that the idea they could power the economy is imaginary. And he's right. Barack Obama has failed to deliver on his so-called "Green Energy" policies.
2. Candy Crowley is a surrogate for the Obama Campaign, and she further solidified that when she committed this act. The truth is, after referring to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror," Obama didn't use that term again for weeks. So not only was Candy wrong with her assertion, but she overstepped her role as moderator by using Obama Campaign talking points. This woman should be forbidden from moderating a presidential debate in the future. It demeans the political discourse in this country when people like Candy Crowley are moderating presidential debates.
1. Obama went way out of context when he said that Romney stated that wind energy jobs are imaginary. Romney never said that. He did say say though that Obama's "imaginary world with solar and wind energy could power the economy." Romney is 100% on point. This green energy crap right now is pointless. Obama is just giving away government money for energy we hardly use and barely works. In addition most of the solar panels we use in America are MADE IN CHINA. We shouldn't be focusing on wind and solar energy right now and be spending a heck of a lot of money. But I do agree that we should have some green energy and invest in it. Right now is not the time. Obama has gone nowhere with it.
ReplyDelete2. Candy should of never said that. A moderator should not be choosing sides. A moderator is their to ask the question and keep the candidates on topic. Her comment tells us that she is an Obama supporter. She was supporting Obama and ganging up on Romney, which is totally unfair in this situation. The moderator should only be asking the questions and moving to the next topic and not giving out fact checks during a debate.
1. In regards to Romney promising to cut taxes for the wealthy in the GOP primary and his subsequent flip flop, I think this is politics and the media should understand that. Clearly, he took a rather far right approach in the primaries to get elected. Obama did the same thing in 2008, not only for the primaries but also for the general election and no one seems to care about that. Politicians say whatever they need to get elected and to act as if Mitt Romney is the first one or the only one guilty of this is wrong.
ReplyDelete2. I think Candy was wrong in intervening like that. The moderator is meant to be an unbiased mediator. When she does things like this, it shows that that is not the case. Her job was not to fact check but to keep the debate moving and ask questions. She did not do a good job of that.
1. Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit
ReplyDeleteHonestly I am surprised but I really should not be. Here is Romney just trying to get elected and doing whatever it takes to get there. He has a reputation of flip-flopping and it is showing during this election. This really disappoints me because everyone in Washington is just trying to get elected to solve the they want not the way the preached during the campaign. This reminds of quote that FA Hayek had said it was " That in government scum always rises to the top. It also reminds about the article that we read and that political leaders tend not be authentic leaders. I just believe that Romney has his own agenda and believes that the ends justify means and he is trying to do whatever it takes to get elected and it really gets me angry.
2. I believe that moderator was in the wrong saying that because the moderator is supposed an objective speaker and therefore should not aid any candidate. She overstepped her bounds and showed a bias towards Obama but overall I do not think this one situation had that large of an impact on the debate.
1. The Libya "terrorist" attack and the Rose Garden Speech fact check has been over discussed in my opinion online and in the news. Obama says that he claimed the violent act in Libya was an act of terror the very next day while Romney says it took him two weeks to draw that conclusion. Solely based on the transcript and the words they said, both men were right and wrong. However, this situation shows Obama in a bad light, as it should, because he misled the American people for two weeks by saying that the internet video was the source of this random act of violence when it turns out that it was planned act of terror.
ReplyDelete2. This is absolutely not an appropriate role for the moderator. She was way out of line in taking it upon herself to fact check Mitt Romney. Her role in the debates is what her title reads, moderator. She should have done more moderating instead of interjecting with facts helping one candidate over the other. She should be banned from moderating debates in the future.
1. The fact check on Romney’s statistic that 580,000 women lost their job was incorrect when only about 93,000 women lost their job under the Obama administration. I think that Romney made this claim because women are more likely to vote for Obama than Romney and he wanted to attempt to sway some female voters.
ReplyDelete2. I think the moderator intervening to correct Romney was completely inappropriate. It was her job to stay unbiased and just “moderate” but I believe that she over stepped her boundaries when she inserted herself in the debate to defend the President.
1. Obama claimed that Gov. Romney said that the controversial Arizona immigration law was a "model" for the nation. The fact check though says that Romney was actually referring to an employee verification law that was enacted years earlier. The President is just trying to sway the minority voters, especially those who live more in the southern regions near the boarder, towards his side by saying Romney supports this immigration law.
ReplyDelete2. I do not believe that Candy Crowley acted appropriately when she "fact checked" Romney. Her job as the moderator is to ask the questions and to keep track of time per question. If it was Obama who was talking, do you think she would have fact checked him? No, she is obviously biased towards Obama and was trying to put a bad image on Romney.
1. Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit. Romney is trying to sway the votes and gain more moderate votes, but at the same time he may lose votes. Either way Romney's trying to pick up more votes to win the election.
ReplyDelete2. I think the moderator crossed the line when she interrupted the debate. It's not the moderator's place to defend any candidate or "fact check" either candidate. The moderator is simply supposed to sit at the debate and moderate, not intervene to help Obama.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. "Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from labeling it a terrorist attack."
ReplyDeleteI found this fact check hilarious. It just seems to me that everyone loves calling out the other guy on every last detail. In the moment, it was quite the sassy comment on Obama's part, and if he were right in the end, it'd have been a great line and a good move for the debate. But the fact that he did, indeed, call it an act of terror, creates even more of an issue. I just find it absurd that two men competing to run our country actually bothered to get into which words were used in the past. I'm more criticizing Obama here, because Romney was correct in calling the President out on this. Obama saying "check the transcript" indicates he either doesn't believe he said this, or didn't use these words. In either case, he's wrong, and it's a silly argument to get involved in. There are much more important issues to argue than which words were used when and by whom. But, I suppose, in a debate, these things are expected.
2. I definitely don't think that this right for Candy's role as a moderator! Although it was hysterical and I was definitely intrigued by her interruption watching the debate, retrospectively it was totally out of line. Leave it to the candidates! She loses her credibility as a moderator in showing bias towards one of the candidates. She should honestly recognize the important of her role and her potential influence on the election by a single comment aiding a candidate.
1. In regards to the auto bailouts and Bankruptcy I disagree with Obamas gross over exaggeration of Romney’s proposal to fix it. In this argument we can see multiple issues being implemented here. We see media bias and manipulations at work, but also the president taking note of this bias and then exploiting it in his debate. Romney’s plan is an idea called managed bankruptcy which is where private investors use their own capital to “bailout” the business. The idea is based off private investors willing to donate more to saving the company so they can protect their investment and the profits they earn from it. This philosophy of capital greed has been part of the free market and American way since the beginning. But due to Obama’s involvement with TARP and other bailout policies many private investors are stepping to the side because they know the government as set up safety nets for these companies so they don’t go bankrupt. I disagree with this because I believe the government should not be involved in private affairs or business at all due to business becoming too dependent on the government and there help. Why I think there is a bias is because magazines and reports took this and changed it to him saying let the companies go bankrupt, which in fact were not his intensions what so ever. It was just Romney’s view of FIXING the problem with little government assistant Not him saying to let them go bankrupt, but to approach the problem differently. Plus TARP is taking the chance of adding more to our deficit if companies aren’t able to pay the money back. And finally we see the use of this bias from Obama when he claimed Romney “said we should let Detroit go bankrupt”. This in fact was not what Romney wanted to do, because in reality he was troubleshooting on how to fix it.
ReplyDelete2.
I do not think this was an appropriate action by the moderator at all because in fact she is showing a bias by defending one of them and making the other look bad. And this creates an unfair advantage for the other. I think this example shown in the video was proving my point because she made Romney look bad and due to this media and reporters are now calling a Romney a liar affecting him in really negative way and hurting his campaign significantly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit."
ReplyDeleteWillard Romney has always been a flip-flopper on issues to get elected. In this quote, Romney completely changes direction from the staunch conservative rhetoric that was prominent during his early campaign, to a more moderate position. It seems as though Romney is changing his views based on how America views an issue. This sort of mentality is dangerous to the presidential position because its unclear what Romney's true values are. I believe that if Romney wins, it proves that you can exorbitantly misconstrue facts, and buy your way into the presidential office.
2.I personally don't see a problem with the moderator fact checking both candidates. Debates are filled with lies and half-truths, and to argue against making the debates less accurate and credible is illogical. Its clear that the moderator was not partisan as she fact-checked both the President, and Williard Romney. This clarity I feel is imperative to the transparency and validity of each candidate. With a moderator fact checking, it promotes the idea that debates are not a place where you can just vomit statistics and facts freely in open view of millions of politically zealous and easily influenced Americans.
1) The fact that stood out to me was that Romney, in the debates repeatedly said that he would not cut taxes for the rich when his primary platform he said the top 1% would benefit. I do think it's ok for candidates and presidents to change some views, if circumstances change. However, the amount of flip flop that Romney has done to get votes leads me to believe he just wants to get elected to get elected, not because he has a genuine care for this country.
ReplyDelete2) I think it is absolutely appropriate for the moderator to participate in this way. She is there to ask questions and bring up things for the candidates to talk about and her referencing that transcript was doing exactly that. It may have been more fair if she had done the same fact checking to support Romney, however, the concept of her fact checking is totally fine.