Tonight's debate for California governor did little to explain what either candidate would they would do if elected. There were a lot of prepared remarks offered by both sides. But ultimately after you got through the cliches there was little substance. Brown clearly wants to make this a populist rant - suggesting that anyone with resources should be prohibited from running for office (I guess he ignores the trust fund that helped sustain him). But Whitman seemed to have glossed over some issues where I think she could have offered more substance. I was struck during the Boxer-Fiorina debate that Fiorina seemed to have done some careful thinking about nuances, I was not convinced that Whitman has done the same.
Did I learn anything about the substance of either candidate? I don't think so. Did I learn anything about the demeanor of either? Not really. Brown did wax into the wonky version of himself a couple of times. And while I understand the complexity of government I simply do not buy his argument that government is so tough that only someone with his long career would be able to handle the job of governor. But did the debate help me make a decision about governor. No.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Could it be that these two republican women are falling in the polls because they look better on paper than in real life or are people finding out who they real are? Lets face it Carly Fiorina was basically fired from HP, but not before she sent HP USA jobs overseas. California has already tried a so-called outsider Independent Republican, his name Arnold Schwarzenegger, we all know how that turned out. Meg Whitman, thinks she can buy the election, but what puzzles many is if she real cared and loved California then why not do your civil duty and vote, seems she is more rhetoric than anything (in good times we would give her a try but not in our disaster mode that we are in). She is finding out that California is not for sale and that you can’t buy everything! What a waste of money!
Post a Comment