Republican presidential hopefuls, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, have escalated their attacks on televised debates over issues of credibility and consistency resulting in an entertaining but unproductive discussion.

The candidates are considered to be the top-runners for the GOP nomination, competing against Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul.

The exchanges between Perry and Romney have prompted an apparent game of one-up-man-ship; where each tries to out perform the other.

As seasoned politicians, both Perry and Romney carry a long history of well-documented statements on a variety of subjects. Each candidate has since used some of these statements to launch barrage of accusations ranging from inconsistency to unreliability.

The near-constant exchange certainly puts pressure on the candidates to perform on live television, where a stumble, a pause or an answer delivered too late can certainly impact their perceived competence.

For the most part the candidates have skilfully struck, and counter-struck, away the attempted blows.

These exchanges, however, do not seem to get them anywhere other than on as subjects on political shows. Romney has called Perry dishonest, Perry has released ads calling Romney misleading. And the attacks just keep coming. The question is, are their issues relevant?

Constant conflict makes for good television, especially during times of movements like Occupy Wall St. However the Perry Vs. Romney debate is not engaging on the issues, and may just be eating away at valuable time that could be used to address the nations concerns.

The GOP debates now seem to be shifting into a popularity contest, between Romney and Perry.
Constructive statements trickle down eventually to the political platform, but the situation is likely to wear-down the viewer.

It is not surprising to see why, in the end, the other candidates are picking up more support after the dust settles from each of these exchanges.

No related posts.