Below you will find a link to the Katie Couric Interview we viewed in class. After watching the interviews, what do you think of Richard Blumenthal and Linda McMahon respectively? Think about the following questions in your response: What are some questions you would ask if you interviewed the two candidates? Did you notice any biases within the program? What issues/information do people seem to care about?
Katie Couric Interview
Due FRIDAY pm
50 comments:
I think that I would think Blumenthal would do a wonderful job. McMahon spends to much money on her campaign and have of things she doesn't need. She is spending way to much money when Blurmenthal isn't. I think that Blumenthal is saying is money for if he wins the campaign he will be able to have enough money to help support Americans. But one question I would ask McMahon is why she is spending all this money on just one campaign. What happens if she doesn't win.
Mikayla Golebiewski
I personally think that Blumenthal would be the best in office. He cares about the people and isn't going crazy spending endless money on just this one campaign. I think McMahon has put herself ahead of the American public and is just blowing all of her money on a campaign she might not win. One question i would ask McMahon is that if she does win, will she have enough money to support Americans considering she blew so much campaigning.
I believe that Linda McMahon will win this election. She spends a lot of money on stuff so she can get elected. I think when she is elected she will make a change to our problems. The question that I would ask Linda McMahon is what changes will you make and if Dick Blumenthal is a competitor or not? The issues that people care about are the economy and job creation. Everyone wants a job and if you don’t then you can’t support your family without the money. So that’s why it’s a big deal about this campaign.
I feel that Richard Blumenthal would be the best candidate for senator due his beliefs and former experience but this campaign has many other aspects. Although I believe Blumenthal should win I am not sure that will happen. The people are very upset with government due to all the issues we are facing which has caused them to look for a fresh start in government. This gives Linda McMahon an advantage because she has no past experience in politics and will be able to bring fresh ideas. The opposite effect is on Blumenthal who has been in government for years. Instead of helping him, his experience is causing people to want him out because they associate him with bad government. Another influence of McMahon’s background is negative however. As the CEO of WWE, McMahon has participated in unprofessional activities which people do not support. In the program this WWE background was greatly focused on creating an obvious bias that didn’t really relate to the politics. This shows that politics has come to focus on the personal aspects of people instead of their actual views.
If I were to interview the candidates I would have a few questions for both. First I would ask Blumenthal about his plans for office compared to his work done in past offices to see if he will remain consistent. Also what his views are on people’s feelings that he has not helped Americans and therefore should be replaced. For McMahon I would want to know about her motive for spending such a ridiculous amount of money on the campaign which should be about the people, not expenses. Also I would want to know what she feels her WWE background can bring to the political world and help the people. This race is certainly a complex one which makes it difficult to know who will do the best job and who will be able to win.
I think Blumenthal would be a better senator than McMahon. McMahon is using a large amount of her own personal money. Blumenthal does not as rich as McMahon so he is at a disadvantage in that respect. It is unfair that McMahon has so much more money than him and is able to basically fund her entire campaign herself. Blumenthal also has much more experience in politics than McMahon so he knows more about the inner workings of it. if I were to ask them questions I would ask them mainly about what they would mainly focus on when elected. It is still somewhat unclear what they are really passionate about.
Melissa Kenney
In general, I respect Blumenthal even if people think he's too experienced or has said things in the past that may not be the whole truth. People such as himself who are under that amount of media pressure are bound to make mistakes and its unfortunate that they are known for those mistakes. He has done a good job as Attorney General and its too bad that they focus so much on the scandal and gossip aspect of the campaign between him and McMahon. I do not like Linda because she seems to think she can buy the campaign and it is honestly not fair for her to be able to spend as much money as she has (about 21 million) while Blumenthal has spent a little less then 2 million. I think her lack of experience in this case is negative and the business she came from was based on lies and deception; this is not something that will prepare her appropriately for a job in politics. If I could ask McMahon a question it would be, "Do you think it is really necessary to spend as much money as you have? And if you were to win the election do you think it would be a fair victory or simply a result of outspending Blumenthal? Would you feel justified on a win?"
I believe that Richard Blumenthal has a better image, but Linda McMahon is more likely to win. I say that he has a better image, because the enormous difference in what each is spending, makes it look like she's trying to buy the election, vs a legitimate candidacy. It's not to say that she doesn't have good intentions or good ideas, because she does, but she should focus more about issues and reaching out the people than buying slots for commercials.
Historically the candidate who spends the most will win their election (so I heard from Mr. Kirby last year). McMahon is outspending Blumenthal twentyfold and Couric’s interview highlighted that fact. McMahon did not shy from the fact that she is pouring money into her campaign, as it is money that she earned through her own private business. As opposed to Blumenthal who would require immense funds from special interest groups to even approach the level of money his opponent has spent, McMahon is able to heavily finance her campaign without seriously compromising her integrity. Couric’s interview of Blumenthal also focused on controversy. Both segments avoided the candidates’ respective platforms, although an attempt to limit bias was made since controversy was addressed on both sides of the race.
If I were to meet McMahon or Blumenthal I would question them on how they would spend their senate term(s) if they were elected on the matters of partisanship and civil rights. Most of the candidates’ stances on political issues are available through official literature, although most people seem more concerned in matters that don’t really affect a senator’s performance like speaking incorrectly about military service or spending a lot on getting elected. While such matters are indications of a candidate’s integrity, they are not as important as the candidate’s stance on major political issues.
From watching the interview, I noticed that people care a lot about a candidates background, because it makes it more personal and shows why they view certain topics in the ways they do. The fact that McMahon has had no political experience gives her an advantage over Blumenthal who has had government issues in the past because she will bring fresh ideas. However, my personal opinion is that Blumenthal should win the election, because I agree with many of his positions. He also is more experienced than Linda. If I were able to ask questions to both candidates, I would ask Blumenthal what he plans to do with his budget when elected. I would ask McMahon why she spent so much money on her campaign instead of focusing in on the people. This campaign is a tough race, and I am interested to see the outcome.
I feel that Richard Blumenthal has a lot more experience then Linda McMahon does. As attorney general, he has much more knowledge then McMahon does, and he will have a more experienced knowledge of how to help our state in the senate. McMahon has barely any political background and the only way she is achieving supporters is by spending large amounts of money on campaigning. Her standpoints on political issues are very vague and it doesn't seem like if she won the election, that she would be able to achieve the goals that she has set for herself. One question I would ask Linda McMahon would be how she decided that she wanted to go into politics in the first place after her background as CEO of the WWE. A question I would ask Richard Blumenthal would be how he feels his position as attorney general will help if he wins the election as senator of Connecticut.
Mc Man spends way to much money on her campaign. Running for office should not be about buying your way in it should be about earning the respect of your peers and the people who elect you. You can not earn respect using any amount of money should not buy political respect. Blumenthal has political experience already and does not deserve suffering do to money. If Blumenthal loses to anything it should not involve money it should be about being out run by someone who is just better for the job. Blumenthal is in my opinion the better candidate because of his experience and political know how. If I were to interview Linda Mc Man I would ask her what she thinks about national security and healthcare. Because I believe Linda to be incompetent when it comes to these issue and would be curious to her reply. I would ask Blumenthal about what he would do differently to improve our economy because If I elect him I would want him to be different then current politicians and bring now economic ideas to light. I believe the program is biased because it attacks Blumenthal and interviews Blumenthal more then Linda. It seems that people care about stupid things they did in the past more then what they will do and can do now. Such as Linda kicking someone in the balls or Blumenthal getting out of fighting in Vietnam.
I think that Blumenthal should be elected over Linda McMahon. Blumenthal certainly has more experience than McMahon. While some people may argue that McMahon has more business experience, a plus in these hard economic times, it is necessary to really analyze the situation and look at who was really in charge of her corporation, her husband. So while this may seem important to the people of Connecticut, I would have to heartily disagree.
In addition, Couric points out that Blumenthal has had about 20 years of experience in the political world already. McMahon has none whatsoever. Our nation has some serious problems to overcome and it will take someone with experience and knowledge to help us out of them.
While I do think that the interview was biased towards Blumenthal, Couric still raised thought provoking questions for both candidates. While voters have many factors to weigh against both Blumenthal and McMahon, I truly believe that Blumenthal is the better choice.
Personally I believe Linda should be elected. We need someone who will know how to create businesses and lessen taxes. Especially being the business woman she is she knows what the businesses are going though with everything. Along with that and not being in politics she's more apt to know what the citizens want, feel and need. After watching the interviews with both candidates I feel that the questions were merly for news and trying to pick at the candidates personally because most people don't even follow politics and just care about the person. The interview didn't change the way I feel about either of the candidates and I hope Linda wins. We need a change and we need more republicans in senante and I defiantly don't want a democrat who lied about their service because that's disrespectful and wrong.
Nate Howard
I think that Blumenthal should win because he is the right choice. He would do great in office. I think McMahon is spending way to much money she is trying to buy the campain. Also she use to be part of a group of people that fighted for the fun of it. One question i would ask McMahon is why are you spending so much money? It is a big waste. What are you going to do if you lose. all the money will go down the drain.
Vikram Lyall
I believe that Richard Blumenthal should continue for at least another term as a Connecticut Senator. I think that Blumenthal is a honest man truly in government for the people. He has also done a great job as Attorney General and I think he is deserving to be reelected. I find it frustrating that the public continually criticize him for one small mistake when referring to his military background and never pay attention to the several good things he has done in the past. I would not support Linda McMahon because I think it is extremely unfair that she is spending over 21 million dollars for the campaign. Although it is her money buying the election would be a huge advantage. Being under a democracy I would be very annoyed if she won just because of financial status rather than her stance on the issues. I found it interesting that in the Katie Couric interview the questions being asked were not about the issues facing America, but rather controversial side topics that have little meaning. More and more elections are being decided by these instead of whats really important, the issues. Although the information is entertaining and juicy it won't solve the 2 wars and financial mess that we are facing. One question I would ask Linda McMahon is: "If you win would you feel that the election was fair because you spent so much more?" I would ask her that and see if she agrees with the hundreds of Connecticut residents who don't approve of her using that much money.
I think that Bluementhal would and should get elected in office. He isnt going around spending tons and tons of money toward his campaign, he is actually focusing on showing the people that he will make change and showing the people how is going to do that. McMahon on the otherhand has been spending loads and loads of money on a campaign that she isn't 100% sure she will win. Personally I think that is immature, and what happens if she wins she will have no money left?
I think that Bluementhal would and should get elected in office. He isnt going around spending tons and tons of money toward his campaign, he is actually focusing on showing the people that he will make change and showing the people how is going to do that. McMahon on the otherhand has been spending loads and loads of money on a campaign that she isn't 100% sure she will win. Personally I think that is immature, and what happens if she wins she will have no money left?
I feel Blumenthal believes that in order to win the election he has to win it fair. Not by spending money on campaigning but by getting people to agree with his ideas and persuade them. Of course, not to say Linda McMahon isn't trying to get other to agree with her but in most perspectives she makes herself out as trying to buy the election. If I had to ask them each a question it would be what they think about healthcare and then their general view on the economy. I was persuaded a bit more towards Blumenthal after watching him in the program having me believe there was a bit of bias. They show McMahon kicking some guy but never had her defending herself while when they mentioned Blumenthal's vietnom accident he was shown defending himself in a very respectful way. There were other instances as well but this one caught my eye. Overall however, I would vote for Blumenthal in the election if I could.
Both Blumenthal and McMahon present themselves very differently. Because of Blumenthal's vast experience in government, he is a very polished individual. All of his answers are given in a very organized and knowledgeable manner which is a reflection of his work in politics. In all of his speeches he tends to repeat lines over and over again, his favorite being “The people want an election, not an auction.” Lines like these are evidence of the connection he is trying to make with the voters, but his efforts are being overshadowed by McMahon's money. McMahon has a couple of core messages that she emphasizes, but her message doesn't seem as organized as Blumenthal. She always touts her work as a business owner which has played in her favor, but Blumenthal needs to do the same with his experience. He needs to talk about the different ways he has stood up for Connecticut citizens. He should talk about the fact that he attends the hearings of people who have been charged with a DUI in order to make sure they are convicted. Blumenthal is definitely the better candidate, he just needs to show that he is.
If I got to interview the candidates, I would want to know more about the specific aspects of their work which would make them a better Senator. I would ask Mr. Blumenthal about the specific issues he has fought for and how he can apply his experience in those fights to a national level. I would want to know more about how McMahon helped grow her business and how she through service in the government she can help business owners do the same. There is a huge difference between what people say they can do, and that they can actually do. I would want to allow people to make that judgment as to whether they think Blumenthal or McMahon could get the job done better.
The interview seemed a little biased because it tended to look more at McMahon's negative aspects than Blumenthal's. The interview showed that people care about jobs the most, but it focused the most on who Blumenthal and McMahon are as people which isn't what people should be voting based on.
I think that Blumenthal is sort of turning into a VP Biden with some of the things he says. But other than that I think that his experience should be a plus in this election not a negative like many people seem to believe. I find that Blumenthal seems more approachable and relatable because he does not come from millions of dollars and actually can understand the “little” people.
I think McMahon is just flaunting her money. Her complete lack of political experience is a huge turn off for me. Yes, she had experience running a big business, but what about running one that might go under next month? And in this recession has she ever been at a loss for money? I do think she is trying to use her money to maybe buy support.
If I interviewed Blumenthal I would ask about what separates him from McMahon besides his experience and lack of money.
If I interviewed McMahon I would definitely grill her about not having experience in politics and how she thinks she can make up for this.
I think the biggest issue right now for people is the economy. I think that because McMahon is flaunting all her money should be a turn off because she is fine financially, how will she help those that aren’t when she hasn’t been in that situation?
Also I think that the video makes Blumenthal out to be the underdog in this race for the Senate seat.
Mike Carbone
I feel Linda McMahon is trying to buy herself a Senate seat by spending over $21 million of her own money on campaigning. Even though this is her own money and she is trying to get her name out there, I think it is ridiculous. I think Dick Blumenthal isn’t putting as much money into this campaign because his popularity level is already high throughout the state. He is trying to win this election by working hard at meeting people and spreading his views.
It seems like the people only care about the trash talk that the candidates and parties talk about each other. Such as Blumenthal lying about himself being in the Vietnam War and McMahon being part of the WWE. People also seem to care about jobs which they think Linda McMahon will do a good job of creating new ones.
My personal opinions of the two are mixed, I think that Blumenthal despite having much more experience than McMahon I cannot help but feeling that he believes he will win based on how little he put into the campaign in comparison to McMahon and with McMahon I would hesitate to vote for her only because of her lack of experience rather than her past association with world wrestling. I do not find McMahon spending approximately 20 million on her campaign an issue because she earned that money through her own business, and who would be better at supporting small/private business than someone who created their own business?
In regards to the program, I had issue with the fact that the platform of either candidate was totally ignored and it mainly focused on the pasts and spending of both candidates and I felt it shed a rather negative light on McMahon with clips from her world wrestling career but equally negative light on Blumenthal with his lack of spending on his campaign and his lie about serving in Vietnam. I felt that the program should have discussed their platform, in fact I would as both candidates what they plan to do for their term in senate and what their platform is, because although it is beneficial to know the background of the candidate for integral purposes, I feel their political stance is of real importance.
The media does it's best to make Linda McMahon appear more ostentatious than her opponent Richard Blumenthal. It is clear that McMahon has spent considerably more money than Blumenthal on her campaign since the beginning; and there is no denial that the money spent on advertising will play a huge role in the outcome of the voting from the general public. On the contrary, in stead of showing his wealth, Richard Blumenthal brings specific attention to prior accomplishments that he was responsible for. In order to counter McMahon,Blumenthal must use the past for examples of his worth and potential. In my opinion, there is a greater likelihood of Blumenthal receiving the senate seat over McMahon. Richard Blumenthal has proved himself to be a beneficial politician for our community, especially since hes been positively affecting Connecticut from the position of attorney general for 20 years. Also Connecticut has historically been a blue state, giving Blumenthal an advantage McMahon cannot utilize at all.
If I was interviewing the candidates I would ask them what they are planning on doing to improve the political situations that are accruing in the U.S. For an example how they would create more jobs to help stimulate the economy. I would also ask them how they plan on doing what they say they will do in order to make a clear reason why someone should vote for them over another candidate. I do think that the interview was somewhat biased when they showed Linda McMahon kicking a wrestler in the groin making her look like a fool. However that was her former job, being in business with her husband running the WWE. On the other hand she should have good background knowledge about business and the creation of more jobs because of her past career. Another thing mentioned throughout the interview was the fact that people are unhappy with what is going on in Washington and the way things are being handled. Many people want change and Linda McMahon could possibly be that answer.
I personally believe that Blumenthal would be the best choice in office. He seems to be more down to earth and relatable. McMahon appears to be trying to buy her way into office with her expensive campaign commercials and ads. I think she needs to try and talk more about how she plans to work on the issues we face today such as the deficit and the health care crisis, than spending more money than her opponent. I believe that Blumenthal’s former experience will also help him gain the respect of the people. McMahon’s campaign strategy is based around her former job of owning WWE or world wrestling entertainment. Not exactly the credentials that a senator should have.
Blumenthal, like any individual, is imperfect. He wished to look more pleasing to the public eye, and exaggerated a claim regarding the level of his participation in the Vietnam War. However when you get down to it he is an excellent and intelligent leader with a history of success and likability.
McMahon, brand new to the political sector, has already started her campaign off with distasteful smear tactics, arguably the ugliest component of politics in general. Furthermore I have yet to see any indication of a high level of intelligence and leadership from her that is necessary to pass legislation. (What she uses in the wrestling ring doesn’t count.) The point is, a minor blunder buried in a career of professionalism and efficiency trumps inexperience coupled with vindictiveness and a steady cash flow.
I would ask both candidates about their stance on healthcare and the economy, as those are the two major issues at this time. Their responses relating to long term recovery would reveal which one is more suited for the position of senator.
Labi,
I think that Linda McMahon will win the election because she is trying so hard. She has spent 21 million of her own money on the campaign and that shows that she isn't taking peoples money or wasting anytime on that she want to get down to business and win so she can finally make a change. She is very rich and she is doing the right thing by using some of her money to help her out.
Both Richard Blumenthal and Linda McMahon both have their problems to fight through for this campaign. Blumenthal is running to refill the democratic seats of congress that people are currently unhappy about. People want a change so therefore the encumbant republicans would have a better chance. It also doesn’t help that he misspoke about his service (or lack of) in the Vietnam War. Linda McMahon also have problems too. Her husband is known to be quite radical and her campaign is spending tons and tons of money. She is rumored to have fired workers while she continued to earn millions. They both are very tough and have to have really good public speaking skills and nerves of steel in order to go into such a tough campaign. If I could interview the 2 candidates I would ask how their relationships with each other are, like if they get along. We always hear about hardcore republicans and democrats getting riled up about each other so I wonder if they really can’t stand each other or they are just in a friendly competition for senate. Or maybe I should ask if they think their opponent’s biggest weakness is. That would be interesting know what they think they are up against.
It was definitely noticeable how image seemed really important to the public. The majority of the interview was about how the public viewed them. Blumenthal’s image was marred by his misspoken words. One ex-marine was very upset about it. Another woman was interview saying how she dislike McMahon for spending so much on her campaign. These examples show that the people seem to care less about the issues the candidates stand for and more about their flaws in character.
I found the report to very biased toward the liberal side. The report started off with a subliminal stab at McMahon by comparing the two political candidates as a wrestling match from the WWE which McMahon is CEO of and has been used by her opponnetss to paint her as ill equipped to handle the job of Senator. If I were interviewing the candidates I would ask them what specific ways would fix the economy as to what legislation they would propose to get their plans for the economy done. As well as how they would handle immigration and protect the future of American workers. The main issue that people seemed to care about would be the economy and whether or not the candidates are part of the old political scene.
Had I interviewed the two candidates, first of all I would not meaninglessly attempt to elicit scandalous information about their past like the interview did. Instead of attacking Linda McMahon because she was the CEO of the WWE, I would instead ask her is it really necessary for her to spend over $20 million dollars in comparison to Blumenthal's $1 million in an attempt to win the election. It may be her money but if she truly does care about society then shouldn't she be using that money to donate to charity groups instead of wasting it on advertisements? If McMahon does win then I'll be very disheartened as it will show that people win elections not by their actual political polices or philosophies but by how rich they are and how much money is spent in the election campaign. I also find it disappointing that the mainstream media only seems to focus on trying to create scandals instead focusing on their actual policies.
After watching the interviews, my views of Richard Blumenthal and Linda MaMahon did not change drastically. They pretty much spoke about topics I already knew such as Linda's involvement in the WWE and Blumenthal's flunder with the war. I, at this point, still favor Blumenthal just because of his views on issues and how I don't like the way Linda is handling the campaign. The interview, however, did not mention the issues at all. It consisted of just "publicity" type news that doesn't deal with the politics and issues of the election. People hear most about this, because of the fact that people are more interested in hearing how Linda or Richard embarrassed themselves, than the real issues. The program was definitely biased. They talked about Linda's involvement with the WWE for a long time and stated how she shouldn't have flaunted this aspect of her. Whereas they still talked about Blumenthal's faults but not at length. If I was interviewing them, I would definitely have stayed on topic with the true politics. So, for instance their stance on the war, health care, education, etc. I would have also asked them how they planned to better the state of the country if elected. I feel these topics are much more relevant than some of the things they put importance on in the interview.
After viewing the Katie Couric interviews with Blumenthal and McMahon, my perception of the two remains the same as it did before. This is that McMahon is absolutely unqualified for the office she is running for, and that Blumenthal, while flawed, is the better candidate who will bring greater success to Connecticut.
If I was able to ask the candidates questions, I would first ask McMahon about her political experience. I would also want to know how she would be able to work with fellow senators to bring about change, when she is clearly and outsider. I would ask Blumenthal why even though he will not be a fresh face to the government, if he will be able to implement revolutionary concepts.
I did take note that the bias was placed on mocking McMahon. Her career as CEO of the WWE was emphasized throughout the program. However, this is not out of place; a candidate’s previous experience is essential to determining if they are adequate for the job.
The information people seemed to be most interested was not policy, but the candidate’s personal life. For example, McMahon was asked about her husband, and how he would fit in in Washington. This of course would have no bearing on her ability to be an effective senator, however, the public judges her by it, because he is her husband.
Amanda Holstein
I believe that McMahon would do a better job then Blumethal in office. As it has been a rising problem in our country, the economy is no longer standing strong. Between the bank bail outs, the loss of jobs, the decrease in morale, or the debt that the country is digging itself into; a problem is evident. But then there is McMahon, who is a symbol of success and determinaton, who has been criticized for one thing -- her money. People use the fact that she laid off workers at her billion dollar company as something that is depicted to be true. But, in this economic downfall, most businsses had to lay off workers or completely shut their doors. Her business was obviously important to her, and it was her main priority to keep it alive, which she did. On the other hand, there's Blumenthal. This man has nothing to back him up other then lousy, irritating campaign commercials and a military past that was based on a lie. Sounds like a true fighter, right? McMahon is the person we need to build our economy back up. With her fortune to show for it, she must be doing something right. Think of our state as one big business going into bankrupcy but choosing to let it slide instead of electing someone who can make a change. That's a mistake we shouldn't make.
In my opinion i think that Blumenthal would be the right choice in office. The people are important. McMohan spends so much money. Blumenthal cares about the people. Thats what we want. He is what we need in office. We don't need someone spending ridiculous amounts of money. I personally think she has gone way to far in spending her money on this campaign. What will happen if she doesn't win? All she did the entire time was spend her money!
I believe that the invterview mainly focused on the background and not political type things to tell about the candidates. I think that McMahon and Blumenthal both have there advantages. Blumenthal has alot of expierence that could lead pople to vote for him vs. McMahon. But McMahon has no expiernce even though it concerns people very few people are happy with the government and so its an advantage because people want everyone to be replaced and get new leaders in the government.
After watching Katie Couric’s interview of U.S. Senate candidates Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal I believe Blumenthal is a career politician who does not have the people’s interests at heart. He made it seem as though he served in Vietnam on a number of occasion, clearly trying to give the public the opinion that he had been a soldier risking his life for our country when he worked hard to avoid service in order to go to Harvard. On the other hand I believe Linda McMahon would offer a fresh outlook for our state in the U.S. Senate. Her years of experience as a businesswoman will undoubtedly help her as she tackles problems in our state. Her attitude while being interviewed by Couric was very honest and positive, as opposed to Blumenthal’s roundabout way of speaking. If I had interviewed the candidates I would have questioned Blumenthal about the times he misspoke, but candidates. Rather than asking McMahon about her background and her personal life I also would have focused more on both McMahon and Blumenthal’s opinions on the issues at hand, such as their positions on job creation, the economy, healthcare, and abortion.
There was certainly a lot of biased reporting in the interview. The candidates were introduced in a way that mocked Linda McMahon by introducing the candidates as if they were in a boxing ring. When Couric was talking to or about Linda she would always bring her past and her job. Also she tried to play up that Linda is spending more money on her campaign than Blumenthal, even though McMahon earned all her money through her work. Overall it was a biased interview clearly in favor of Blumenthal.
After watching Katie Couric’s interview of U.S. Senate candidates Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal I believe Blumenthal is a career politician who does not have the people’s interests at heart. He made it seem as though he served in Vietnam on a number of occasion, clearly trying to give the public the opinion that he had been a soldier risking his life for our country when he worked hard to avoid service in order to go to Harvard. On the other hand I believe Linda McMahon would offer a fresh outlook for our state in the U.S. Senate. Her years of experience as a businesswoman will undoubtedly help her as she tackles problems in our state. Her attitude while being interviewed by Couric was very honest and positive, as opposed to Blumenthal’s roundabout way of speaking. If I had interviewed the candidates I would have questioned Blumenthal about the times he misspoke, but candidates. Rather than asking McMahon about her background and her personal life I also would have focused more on both McMahon and Blumenthal’s opinions on the issues at hand, such as their positions on job creation, the economy, healthcare, and abortion.
There was certainly a lot of biased reporting in the interview. The candidates were introduced in a way that mocked Linda McMahon by introducing the candidates as if they were in a boxing ring. When Couric was talking to or about Linda she would always bring her past and her job. Also she tried to play up that Linda is spending more money on her campaign than Blumenthal, even though McMahon earned all her money through her work. Overall it was a biased interview clearly in favor of Blumenthal.
I think that Blumenthal would do a much better job in office than McMahon. Blumenthal has done a great job as attorney general and I think he would be a great senator. He seems to be very down to earth and I believe that people can relate to him more than they can to McMahon. I do not like Linda McMahon because she is very focused on money and has spent way to much on this campaign. Also, she does not have much experience in politics and comes from being the CEO of WWE which would not help her in being a senator. Overall, Blumenthals experience and personality makes him the better choice in my opinion. If I were to interview each of the them, I would ask them questions about how they plan on solving the issues that are facing our state.
I know that Linda McMahon will win this election because she is spending lots of money on her campaign so she can get elected. I believe that when she is elected she will make a lot of changes to our government and she will add another republican chair to the senate witch is a good thing, because it is time for change. The question that I would ask Linda McMahon is what changes will you make and why she believes that she is the better candidate than Richard Blumenthal? The issues that people care about are the economy and job creation. Everyone needs jobs and money to survive, and if you don’t have a job you can’t support your family. And this recession makes this election so much more important because people want to see changes and quick.
I think that Mcmahon should win because she would bring a new perspective to the playing field while Blumenthal has been Attorney General for awhile. Also i think that her spending her own money shows how she is dedicated to win this election. On another note Blumenthal did lie about serving in Vietnam which has been a source of controversy which does switch peoples opinions. In conclusion Mcmahon should win because she cares more about the election than blumethal i think.
I believe that Linda McMahon will win this election but it will be a very close one. She has spent a ton of money on this election and has put a lot of time into it. She is willing to fight strong for our economy and will work for us. I believe that Richard Blumenthal just focuses on trying to make Linda look bad in his commercials and is not focusing on the importance of this country. Linda's website is a million times better than Richards because it's better set up, it's more attention grabbing and it's a lot more organized. Linda cares a lot about the people and focuses on ways to fix the economy and Richard focuses on trying to make Linda look bad so I don't see where he wants to help the people. People just look at the issues more. I believe Linda will win this election!
Marco Iovanna
I believe that Linda McMahon will win this election because she has spent a lot of money and time on it. I think if she wins she will help change things that are going on right now. I think she really cares on what’s going on today with the economy so that’s why she is willing to spend the money she is spending to win. I believe that Linda McMahon will help with the economy and will help with job creation so that’s why she should win.
I think that Linda McMahon has the right ideas for creating jobs, reducing the debt, and getting the country back on track. I feel like the interview was biased against her, they focused a lot on her past with the WWE and tried to show that she doesn't have a lot of experience. A question i would want to ask her would be how she is going to work on reducing spending, and what she plans to do with taxes. I also ask how she feels about the free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea. =]
Lisa Fischer
I tried to post my blog response on Friday after school but my internet was being uncooperative and not working long enough for me to post a response. It finally started working again this morning. I understand if you have to take a few points off. I'm so sorry, thank you!
After watching the video, I believe that Richard Blumenthal would be the best choice for the open connecticut senate seat. Many people are getting aggravated with Linda McMahon for spending overwhelming amounts of her own cash on this election, when her money could be better spent helping the country. However, the Katie Couric interview seemed intensely focused on the personal lives and past mistakes of the candidates and gave absolutely no publicity to the issues themselves, or how each candidate feels about them. If I were Katie Couric, I would have asked Blumenthal and McMahon what they plan to do in order to recreate jobs while in office. How do they plan to fix the collapsing education system?
People should stop putting so much importance on a candidate's past and force them to speak about the issues.
I think that McMahon will win, for two big reasons. One is that people are sick of the current government, which gives McMahon an advantage over Blumenthal. The second thing is the amount of money McMahon is spending will give her an advantage, and it also shows that she is successfull. The interview was also biased because they stressed McMahon's past in the wrestling industry. They also pointed out Blumenthal's military service mistake statements, but the emphasase was on McMahon's percieved shortcomings.
Blumenthal should be elected senator. He has much more political experience than McMahon and does not see this election as a game you can win by spending ridiculous amounts of money. I also think it is immature to focus most of your campaign on making the other candidate look bad, which is exactly what Linda McMahon has been doing.
If I could ask Blumenthal a question it would be: Instead of focusing on what you have done in your political career in the past, what are the top three issues Americans face today and what will you do to solve them?
I would ask Linda McMahon the same question and I would ask her why she has spent such large amounts of money on this campaign and if she is elected will she still spend outlandish amounts of money on unnecessary things?
I think that McMahon would be the best for the job. I think the she has the experience to help the job field out there.Blumenthal has said somethings that haven't been so truthful, like how he served in the war. But he never thought. So is it possible he is lying about what he is going to do Because she first handed experienced it. People today are very worried about jobs and the economy. Just the one thing is that she is spending a lot of money, but she is doing it to get her name out into the world. But one question I would ask Blumenthal is why he isn't spending a lot money on this campaign. I don't think his name is being herd
Emily Walker
Personally, I don't care for either of the candidates, but if I were to pick one, I would probably say Blumenthal because he knows what he is doing and has previous experience. He also isn't wasting all his money on a desperate attempt to win like McMahon. She is only tryign to buy her way in, which is improper and not the way to go. that actually decreases her image alot. I think that some people are only against Blumenthal because they put him in the same basket as all the other people that screwed up this country when theres a good chance that he didn't. McMahon is a wrestler, not a politician. She has no experience and doesn't know what shes doing. She may have some "fresh ideas" but those "fresh ideas" might not be the best for the country. If I were to ask a question to each of them, i would ask McMahon what she thinks she's doing and why she thinks she's the best choice. I would probably ask Blumenthal What his ideas are to imporve the country in a better, positive, conservatve way. That if he actually will stand his ground with what he says or will be like other lying candidates.
In my opinion I believe that Blumenthal would be the better candidate. First off, hes not trying to buy the election, as McMahon is doing buy funding her campaign with 20 million dollars of her own money. Secondly, he has an almost 20 year record of showing us how he has helped the state of Connecticut such as with Big Tobacco companies and Electrical companies as attorney general. Personally I feel McMahon will lose votes due to the innapropriateness of the program that she was ceo of on television. Do people really want someone like that running our state?
The main question I would ask them both is what their approach would be on creating more jobs in Connecticut as that is a critical issue currently in our state.
In terms of biases, I think Katie was fair as she asked McMahon about the innapropriateness of her program as well as ask Blumenthal about his misspeaking about his vietnam war record.
Post a Comment