In the world of politics and debate, the candidate who attacked the most--the candidate that disregarded the rules the most--the least civil man--HAS BEEN DECLARED THE WINNER.
Is this what is the most important part of the discussion? Should we choose a candidate because they bullied their commentator and their opponent? All the pun dents are telling us that Romney won. So what is it that he won? Why is acting less like a gentleman than the president winning? Liberals are saying that Obama should have attacked. So if he had attacked as much as Romney he would have won?
I think we saw a real difference in the candidates---one will do what ever it takes to win.
----the other will maintain his dignity no matter what? It is a serious question to ponder which of these qualities is best for America right now. Do we need someone to push and attack our congress to get them to act? or Do we need someone to compromise and be inclusive? In a crisis do we want to negotiate or go full steam ahead? I truly do not know.
No comments:
Post a Comment