Joe Biden wore blue. Paul Ryan wore red with blue American stripes. Their debate last night was the culmination of meticulous planning and choreography on both sides. Too much. Since Kennedy's polished chops sliced through a haggard Nixon in 1960 there's been little to explore in the fallout.
Without a motion besides 'who has the better policies', or 'who is more apt to govern', presidential and vice-presidential debates have little direction, the only purpose serving broadcasters, pollsters, and writers analysing tie colours.
At one stage, woefully sidestepping an opportunity to cement the party line on the value of free expression, Ryan decided instead to mount a charge for the current administrations "weak" reaction to the killings in Benghazi last month. I wrote at the time about the more disappointing aspects of Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama's responses, but the issue is not party-political, it is constitutional.
Today Mitt Romney bypassed a similar opportunity to rally support for the First Amendment and position his party behind the American constitution. The temptation to peer over the wire and take a snipe at his opposition proved too strong.
Reacting to Joe Biden's assurances that the defense department were not neglectful of their consular staff in Libya, Romney said: "The vice-president directly contradicted the sworn testimony of state department officials. He's doubling down on denial." His reasoning is fallacious. Contradiction does not necessitate denial. Again, the issue is not Biden, nor witness testimony, but rather whether or not the United States should have foreseen an attack of that kind, or indeed whether the official response was consummate or strong enough.
If Romney and Ryan refrain from pot-shots, and instead address the issues behind the political ticket, they could start wearing whatever colour ties they please.
No comments:
Post a Comment