Joe and Paul

Published in Folha.com (Folha de Sao Paulo)
(Brazil) on 12 October 2012
by Luciana Coehlo (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jane Dorwart. Edited by Kathleen Weinberger.
Something incredible happened on Thursday night in Kentucky: a debate with substance between the vice-presidential candidates of the U.S. election. At times, their messages were illustrated with phrases on PowerPoint. This seemed as fantastic as the landing of a flying saucer!

I will not dwell on who won the debate. The research is divided, resulting in a technical tie between Ryan, whose victory was announced on CNN, and Biden, winner among the undecided block according to CBS. Such results are nothing to write home about, nor anything to launch fireworks about for either side.

I think the Democratic vice president gave the best answers and provided more substance than the Republican candidate, but he lost many points with various untimely outbursts of laughter (seriously, what was that? Did anyone do a drug test after the confrontation?).

Ryan also seemed self-assured and made it clear he was not the youngster his opponent painted him to be. In contrast with Biden, he was cold even when it came to speaking about subjects personal to him. He lost where he should not have lost — in his answer about taxes, according to CNN, whose public polls preferred those of the Democrat.

In the end, according to research findings, it does not seem that the debate resulted in a great change in the voting intentions.

What caught my attention, however, was the contrast between the two vice-presidential candidates and those of the two presidential candidates. Thursday's debate was much better.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were more prepared than Biden and Ryan — or at least their parties thought this. Perhaps because of an excess of preparation, the two preferred evasions and attacks to giving details about their individual platforms. The first presidential debate revealed nothing substantive about either candidate’s plans.

Biden and Ryan, in contrast, seemed willing and seemed to have read the whole book, not just the summary for an entrance exam. Perhaps this was because it was the only debate between the two. Perhaps it was because it was a chance to show independent voters on national network, in the case of Biden, that he was not just a gaffe machine, and in the case of Ryan, that he was neither immature nor too radical. Perhaps it was because of the impressive competency of the mediator, Martha Raddatz of the ABC network, who did not permit anyone to escape responding.

The fact is that the two candidates seem to have assimilated much more of the contents of their parties’ platforms.

It's amazing that this has come from two populists (Biden to the left of Obama and Ryan to the right of Romney). Among other of a number of coincidences they share is the fact that they both come from cities with large working populations — the Democrat from Scranton, Pennsylvania and the Republican from Janesville, Wisconsin.

They are both devout Catholics who started work in the public sector very early — much earlier than their respective heads of party (Obama and Romney) — and were first elected in their 30s. Both headed respectable committees in Congress (Biden as Head of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and Ryan as chairman of the House Budget Committee). Both have a penchant for great promises.

More importantly, it is easy to see them as two average Americans and to empathize with one or the other, depending on one's political orientation.

Both Obama and Romney have had less-than-ordinary life experiences compared to the average American. Obama has his multicultural lifestyle and African ancestry, while Romney comes from an elevated political and economic class and is a devotee of a religion that is subject to prejudice. Both studied at Harvard and both were trained to be winners; both have difficulties expressing human warmth.

Of course, debating is not the same as governing, and the populism of Biden and Ryan at times is tiring. The subjects raised on the platform resulted in a debate with much more content and appeal than the previous one, which featured candidates who had learned to speak at the best (or one of the best) universities on the planet and whose rhetoric is constantly polished by marketers.

For the debate next week, I suggest that Barack and Mitt take a leaf from Joe and Paul's book.


Joe & Paul

12/10/12 - 12:47
POR LUCIANA COELHO

Uma coisa incrível aconteceu na noite de quinta-feira no Kentucky: um debate com substância entre os candidatos a vice-presidente dos EUA. Em tempos de mensagem ensaiada e frases de power point, isso soa tão fantástico quanto o pouso de um disco voador.
Não vou me estender sobre quem ganhou o debate. As pesquisas se dividiram, com um empate técnico com Ryan à frente na CNN, e Biden vencendo entre uma amostragem de eleitores indecisos na CBS. Nada para soltar fogos de nenhum lado.
Acho que o vice-presidente democrata deu respostas melhores e com mais estofo do que o deputado republicano, mas perdeu muitos, muitos pontos com aquelas gargalhadas fora de hora (sério, o que era aquilo? Alguém fez o antidoping depois do confronto?).
Ryan também mostrou segurança e deixou claro que não é nenhum moleque como o oponente tentou pintá-lo, mas, ao contrário de Biden, estava frio até para falar de coisas pessoais. E se perdeu onde não podia se perder, na resposta sobre impostos (o público monitorado pela CNN gostou mais do democrata aí).
No saldo, não me parece que haverá grande mudança nas pesquisas de intenção de voto.
O que me chamou a atenção, porém, foi o contraste entre os dois vices e os titulares de sua chapa. E o debate de quinta foi muito melhor.
Barack Obama e Mitt Romney são mais preparados do que Biden e Ryan, ou ao menos assim pensam seus partidos. Talvez pelo excesso de ensaios, porém, os dois preferiram as evasivas e os ataques  aos detalhes de sua plataforma. O primeiro debate presidencial não revelou nada de substancial sobre os planos de cada um.
Biden e Ryan, pelo contrário, pareciam à vontade. E pareciam ter lido o livro todo, não só o resumo para o vestibular. Talvez porque esse fosse o único debate entre os dois. Talvez porque fosse a chance que tinham para mostrar em rede nacional aos eleitores independentes, no caso de Biden, que não é só uma máquina de gafes, e, no de Ryan, que não é imaturo nem tão radical. Talvez tenha sido a competência impressionante da mediadora Martha Raddatz, da rede ABC, que não deixou nenhum dos dois fugir das respostas.
Fato é que os vices parecem ter assimilado muito melhor o conteúdo das plataformas.
Incrível que isso tenha vindo de dois populistas (Biden à esquerda de Obama, e Ryan à direita de Romney). Entre as não poucas coincidências que os dois dividem, está o fato de virem de cidades com grande população operária – o democrata é de Scranton, na Pensilvânia, e o republicano de Janesville, em Wisconsin.
São católicos devotos, que começaram a trabalhar muito cedo — muito mais cedo do que os titulares de suas chapas — e se elegeram antes de completarem a terceira década de vida. Presidiram comissões respeitadas no Congresso (Biden a de relações exteriores no Senado; Ryan a de Orçamento na Câmara). E ambos têm pendor pelas promessas grandiosas. 
Mais importante, é fácil enxergá-los como dois americanos médios, e empatizar com aquele entre os dois que afine melhor com a sua orientação política.
Obama e Romney, por sua vez, têm experiências de vida esdrúxulas à média da população; Obama com sua vivência multicultural e sua ancestralidade africana, Romney egresso de uma casta política e econômica elevada e devotado a uma religião que enfrenta preconceito. Os dois estudaram em Harvard, os dois foram treinados para ser vencedores, e os dois têm dificuldade para mostrar calor humano.
Debater não é governar, verdade, e o populismo bidenista e ryanista às vezes cansa. Mas os sujeitos formados pelo palanque fizeram um debate com muito mais conteúdo e apelo do que aqueles que aprenderam oratória na melhor (ou uma das melhores) faculdade do planeta e poliram sua retórica com marqueteiros.
Para o debate da semana que vem, sugiro a Barack e Mitt trocar um dedinho de prosa com Joe e Paul.



This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Topics

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Related Articles

Brazil: Americans Freely Voted Against Democracy

Brazil : US Media Fails in Its Coverage of the Election*

Brazil: With Trump’s Vice President, America’s ‘New Right’ Could Reach the White House

Brazil: What the Biden-Trump Debate Said about the Relationship between the US and China*