More Feculent Hot Air

This post refers to the first Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown debate for the 2012 Massachusetts Senate election. A liveblog of the event can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/20/live-blog-first-debate-between-senator-scott-brown-and-challenger-elizabeth-warren/fKJ1cbXDuUQ0uAeHbYrARJ/story.html

The debate was also televised and can be found here:

http://youtu.be/LZgIwnQT00g

I will also reference the first 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, which can be found here:

http://youtu.be/gbrcRKqLSRw

This post will merely reiterate my opinion with regard to the Presidential debate, and modern political debates in general. They are filled with opinionated attacks that do little to explain or illuminate policy choices and their effects.

Throughout much of the debate, both candidates mention and argue that their opponent is "misrepresenting the facts" or "misleading the voters" or some other play on those words. The candidate then does their duty of telling what they see as "the truth," thereby wasting even more time.

Perhaps my favorite part of the debate is the fifteen minutes spent on discussing Warren's supposed Native American ancestry. An issue that I honestly couldn't care less about. However, this is an issue -- specifically tied to the ethos aspect of argument -- which shows whether or not Warren is a trustworthy person.

Again, I don't really care either way. What I do care about are her policy choices, and the way those choices affect people. For example, at one point during the debate, the question of whether the candidates are for or against the Dream Act came up.

(The Dream Act refers to a federal law which would basically grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who are doing well in school)

Warren and Brown mentioned whether or not they were for the act, and then went over a few reasons why, which I loved.

I originally listened to some of this debate on the radio, and it seemed obvious that Brown was the more well-spoken candidate. Romney's performance during the Presidential debate mimicked Brown's in that both were assertive, well-spoken, and very active in their attempt to address issues. Thus, it seems fair to say that Brown "won" the debate. Indeed, I enjoyed listening to him more than I did listening to Warren. However, I agree more with Warren's policy choices than I do with Brown's. Again, highlighting that conflict between ethos, pathos, and logos.