112
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + +
Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak? (view source)
Revision as of 02:39, October 26, 2008
, 02:39, October 26, 2008→No
==No==
==No==
Well, I can't take the extreme side, and say that no mistakes are allowed. '''''But I do believe that we can learn a lot about a person from their gaffes''.'''
Obama, for instance, when saying that rural white voters "cling to their guns and religion" instead of supporting his pro-populist agenda, was revealing a very deep-seated bias against a lot of voters and their beliefs. When Bush made the mistake of saying that the US was not well-allied with other nations against the War on Terror, he spoke energetically about Poland, revealing a warm, deep confidence in them and in the British. When Howard Dean uses his brother to help spread hurtful words against McCain and his military contribution, you can learn a deep understanding of the Deans' disregard for just mentioning the topic. When Bush made numerous gaffes, confusing Iraq and Iran, for instance, he showed a narrow, provincial view of the region. Hillary Clinton talking about white supremacy in a NYC rally showed her level of opportunism and political contortion when fighting political opponents.
For these reasons, and many more, I think mistakes are excellent, and they help give a better understanding of what a candidate feels when they are un-scripted and un-censored. Does a mistake disqualify a candidate from office? Absolutely not. But does it make a difference? It sure does, and in many cases, it is very important to find that true meaning behind the spin.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)