Mitt Romney’s insidious comments at a fundraiser event (in May), that disregarded the 47% of Americans, appeared at the time as a major regression for his campaign. However, after a resurgent, aggressive Romney spewed his plans and ideological beliefs on the national stage in the first debate, he swung right back in the polls. In the first debate Romney caught a lot of heat for his gaffe about cutting funding for PBS, as he told debate moderator and PBS personality, Jim Lahr that he wants to cut funds by 450 million dollars. These subsides from the government are minuscule in the big picture. These comments lead to a direct social media movement, in an attempt to “save big bird”. Joe Biden has had his fair share of gaffes, but none that have proved to be too costly. In the vice presidential debates Joe Biden didn’t hesitate on calling out how Paul Ryan’s plan was not mathematically feasible. Joe Biden constantly uttered the word “malarkey”, and at one point called Ryan’s policies “a bunch of stuff”. Biden kept alluding to the fact that Ryan’s plan was filled with misnomers and lies. Gaffes can be a delicate part of an election, as it can leave a once promising campaign in shambles. For example, in the 1988 election between Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, the race appeared close until a gaffe changed the dynamics of the election. Dukakis was asked a question about rape and murder and if he would have pushed for capital punishment if it was done to someone in his family, his response was a sheer “no”, which many pundits and analyst felt was weak and immoral. While gaffes in the past have proved to be costly for some candidates, they are often blown out of proportion. For this reason we must thoroughly examine the facts and fundamental positions of each candidate, before crystallizing our decision. We must ask “what’s best for our nation”? “What is best for our individual needs”?
The second debate was hosted by Hofstra University in New York, it was a town hall format where citizens asked questions on key issues. There was a blatantly obvious quarrel between the two candidates in this debate. The audience and moderator could sense the animosity in the room, as Obama was looking to rebound from a lackluster performance in the previous debate. Tension grew increasingly high, as the issue of oil came up. Romney kept bombarding Obama with the question “how much money did you cut for oil spending”? At this point everyone watching, there and at home was in awe, as it appeared this debate was going to into a heavyweight prize fight, with fists flying. (Maybe that’s how elections should be decided, a 12 round fight, with the electoral college, as judges) In the latter parts of the debate, what was viewed by some as a gaffe by the moderator this time , was when Candy Crowley did an in debate fact check, regarding the situation in Benghazi. The “gaffe” was seen as a boost that helped Obama, rather than Romney because it made Romney look foolish. The third debate showed a more potent Obama, as he was more assertive, attacking Romney on key points in foreign policy. Both candidates showed they are effective debaters, using elaborate rhetoric to elicit a strong response from the nation. With election day looming and the debates over, the prospects are extensivley tight.
Romney has been recently put into question about his plan that pertains to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Government Agency). He said in a 2011 primary, that he wanted to restrain the federal government’s involvement, by cutting funds by 40% and making it a state level issue, or if it can be taken a step further, a private investment. As Stephen Colbert mocked this plan on his show, sarcastically stating that it was a good idea to let only the states handle the problem, while their infrastructure has been swept out to sea. The federal government provides a safety net for when events like Sandy occur, they help provide funds and relief on a local and state level, which is why federal government and state government should coincide. A private entity controlling and regulating relief would be a disaster within itself, as it would likely not rely on taxpayer dollars, but funds from the citizens who were effected by a catastrophic destruction. When Romney was asked about his remarks last week during a campaign rally, he seemed to elude the question. A gaffe conceived one of Romney’s chief advisers was the idea that Mitt Romney was an etch-a-sketch that could be erased once the primaries were over and the presidential race began. Romney has seemed to constantly change his fundamental policies, which is not a gaffe, but perhaps a conscious decision to appeal to a wider base.