3rd US Presidential Debate

The 3rd Presidential debate between Barrack Obama and John McCain was the most anticipated event by millions of people around the world for this would be their last chance to see the two presidential candidates side by side. The debate was very timely; especially, with the financial crisis we are facing right now I believe that US electorate is in a position to take a stand on issues that require serious and hardheaded response. Furthermore, its discussion was also profitable since they get to know the stand and views of each candidate on various issues. Through this way it offers a helpful reference to the voters in making a choice for those who are still pondering on whom to vote on Election Day.

Indeed, the Presidential debate meets the academic standards for the rules were properly laid down by the moderator, Mr. Bob Schieffer. The debate was focus on domestic issues. It will include two-minute answers and then five minutes of discussion. Basically, the Lincoln-Douglas debate type or two-man debate type has been followed in which there is only one speaker on each side. Both of them made a thorough preparation for the debate and ready for to respond to any questions to be thrown against each other.

The two presidential candidates have different strategies in responding to the other's claims and refuted those claims in a convincing manner by using gestures to convey their message to the audience. Personally, I like Obama’s style because there is spontaneity in his presentation and his tone is more conversational and lively which allows him to get connected with the audience. On the other hand, McCain is has a more aggressive tone and he did not try to stay focused on the issues. His answers were vague sometimes. The good thing about this debate was it put on display the different characters and temperaments of the two candidates.

At any rate, the debate touched on various issues such as abortion, climate change, economy, and health care as well as their personal lives when McCain questioned Obama’s relationship with Ayer and his connection with ACORN. The debate was intense, compelling, and should offer voters a clear choice between the candidates on the issues that matter the most to them. In its totality, I can say that this night was the shining moment of Obama for he appeared direct, engaged, vigorous, and yes, presidential.

Are we ready for charter change?

Nowadays, with the economic and political turmoil in the country there has been a clamor from various political parties to amend the 1987 Constitution, specifically, the move to shift from presidential bicameral form of government to parliamentary form. In fact, much has been said and debated on whether it is now the right time to dance the beat of CHA-CHA or not. The big question that lingers in the mind of many people is whether under the Philippine system will the parliamentary form of government work better than the present presidential system?

Basically, the move to parliamentary form of government is based on the premise that we are experiencing political and economic crisis; hence, our present political system need structural reforms to address the ailing situation of our economy which makes many poor Filipino people become poorer. The proponents of Charter Change really believe that such moves are necessary for the nation to move forward. Also, given the situation of many Filipino, the pro cha-cha believe that amending the 1987 Constitution will bring mutual benefits and stimulate solidarity which can contribute to building the foundations for peace, stability and prosperity in the country. On the other hand, many people contested charter change because they believe that it is one of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s strategies in her game plan to extend her term of office. Moreover, they are skeptical and reluctant for traditional politicians might use it as a means for their own personal interests and motives. Civil society groups from left to right have voiced similar calls for the public to condemn the actions of the House.

At any rate, parliamentary form of government has its pros and cons. The following are the advantages of the system: First, it reduces the high cost of electing a head of the government. Second, the fusion of the executive and legislative branches can immediately address the gridlock in government. Third, the Prime Minister, cabinet and members of the parliament are directly accountable to the people. However, this system has also its downsides for the fusion of executive and legislative branches means there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the two branches. Unlike the presidential form of government, wherein the government functions on the theory of check and balance and the tripartite concept which enables every branch of the government to function independently from each other. With regards to accountability to the people, parliamentary form of government lacks the ability to have a separate and vigilant legislature to investigate and control the abuse of power by a corrupt executive.

Personally, I think that whatever forms of government we are going to adopt does not matter at all because a government can only be effective if those in position will truly represent the interest of all the people and not their personal interests. Definitely, I do not see the benefit of a change in political system if it will be the same people in power whose attention were not focus on what might work best for our country and people. There is nothing wrong with our system; it’s the people who run the system who must change for the betterment of our nation. I certainly believe that our unified strength is the weapon at hand, our destiny does not rest on the kind of system we are going to espouse but it depends on ourselves.