Week 7: Mantaur Rodeo Clown -versus- The D-Man

[Mr. TM]

Linda McMahon for Senator or Jerry Lawler for Mayor. Who would be better in their potential offices?

The D-Man is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific

 

[D-Man]

I'm going to argue in favor of Jerry Lawler for Mayor. MRC, you can begin. And good luck to you!!

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Sorry for the delay D-Man. I know you must be itching to jump into this, so ill try be a bit more punctual. I've been busy, and I had to do my research on the senate in america, as well as a bit on Linda McMahon. so here we go.

We all know Linda McMahon. Vince's wife. That woman in the wheelchair at Wrestlemania X-7. However, Linda McMahon is much more than we see on screen. Her off screen work, with organizations such as Sacred Heart University, as well as support of Foundations such as the Make-A-Wish and Starlight Foundation paint a pretty clear picture of the family woman she is. As CEO of the WWE since 1997, she has steered the company financially through some of it's best periods up until this very day. Using her power within a multi-million dollar company, she has managed to start many campaigns such as the "SmackDown Your Vote!" campaign to help with the election, as well as many of the pro-education and pro-reading programs in which we see MVP and Matt Hardy reading to second graders.

We can easily see here, that a job with such great import as the US senate, with the power to pass various bills and bits of legislation that could affect people across the nation would be better suited in the hands of someone who not only has had success with money, but also is a philanthropist and supporter of good causes.

Would Jerry Lawler make a good mayor? Probably. He is of course, the mascot for Memphis. But in terms of his past, which includes 3 divorces and a number of arrests, it would be hard to say how well he could cope with a job such as mayor. He would basically win only as a popularity contest, not on his own merits. Although being a mayor is of far less worth than a senator, it is still a role of responsibility, not privilege. I get the niggling feeling that Jerry Lawler will end up less like a responsible ambassador for Memphis, tenessee, and more like this mayor.

Spoiler: Jerry Lawler as Mayor?

Having spent most of his life in the ring or at least near it, a sudden shift to administrative work, even in a town he loves, could not be said to be as thrilling to him. Would he perform his job as well as he could, if his true passion of wrestling beckons? I don't know. Voting someone in on popularity, rather than personal merits is probably not a great indication of how they will do. What has Jerry Lawler done for Memphis besides make them cheer him? And what will he do if elected? He might show up to events and smile and wave, but how much progress could he really make?

Sorry again for being late D-Man.

 

[D-Man]

I'd like to start by quoting Mantaur Rodeo Clown on the following statement...

I know you must be itching to jump into this

I guess my best response to this would be... Hahaahah...

On the contrary, I'm dreading every single second that I have to spend on this debate. I'm fortunate enough to get the opportunity to debate against Mantaur (since I'm a fan of their work on WZ), however the subject of politics always seems to be a speed bump for me in terms of debating. This is going to require more research than I've ever done. Hopefully, by the time we're finished, my debate makes good sense and I may learn a thing or two in the process.

(Normally, I'd begin my debate with an extensive background on all parties involved, but since we are all such avid professional wrestling fans and know these two well, I'll spare the minor details.)

Linda McMahon

She is the lovable, hard-working, and tough CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. And to make things even more difficult, she's vince's wife. She MUST be tough. Anyway, just as MRC explained earlier, she is a woman that is extremely involved in outside activities and organizations, one of which helps increase awareness on young Americans using their power to vote. However, I was aware of this when I chose my side of this debate and I don't think it gives Linda any advantage in this debate, whatsoever. More on that later...

Jerry "The King" Lawler

He is Memphis's own, a hall of fame wrestler, a current commentator on WWE's flagship television program, Raw. The man is a hero in Memphis, and if this debate came down to who would have an easier time winning their election, there is no doubt that Lawler would crush Linda in terms of voting popularity. But that's not what this debate is about, is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems as if the basis of MRC's debate is in regards to Linda McMahon's experience in building hype and awareness about certain political and social organizations. However, I fail to see any correlation with Linda's ability to handle the political office. Yes, she is more than capable of running a business, but being a senator is about much more than cheerleading an effort to raise awareness and gain members of existing organizations. Political officers are voted in because they are the most qualified for improving the ways of life of a specific geographic and attempting to correct any existing problems that lie therein.

Furthermore, Linda McMahon isn't running for a small office in this debate... we're debating on whether she'd make a good impact as a member of the US fucking Senate. This is the upper house of the United States Congress. And the issues that are tackled by the senate stretch far beyond paying employees, television storylines, and visiting schools to talk about "Smacking Down your vote." Granted, she is a strong authority figure, but her expertise does not lie in the categories expected of a senator.

While I believe that her strong decision making and business expertise can allow her to eventually adapt to the position, I think that we need to ask the debate question again, stressing the key words...

Linda McMahon for Senator or Jerry Lawler for Mayor. Who would be better in their potential offices?

Once again, I take nothing away from Linda McMahon's business know-how and her ability to run a company, enlist members in campaigns, and provide a support system for the senate. I just don't believe that her leadership roles are fit for being a senator. She has a large demographic to cover in the United States, many voices to listen to, and I believe she'd be lost in the shuffle next to others on the senate. Not to mention that her leadership and decisions will only be effective if she has an audience that will listen to them and obide by them.

However, Jerry Lawler is a man that built his entire adolescent life and career around Memphis, Tennessee. He is an icon amongst its population and is one of the most well-respected men in the city's history. There is no doubt that the people of Memphis would respect any of his decision-making, team with him to solve problems and conflicts, and stand by him no matter what blemishes there are in his track record. And Lawler is no stranger to the political picture...

In 1999, Lawler ran for mayor of Memphis, Tennessee. His platform focused on making the streets safer for residents, beautifying the city, and improving the quality of education. In addition, he vowed to attract businesses to Memphis, improve the flow of traffic, create more parks, and decrease property taxes. Lawler ended up with 11.7% of ballots, beating twelve of the fifteen candidates.

He had been down this road before and had already begun to tackle major issues that were affecting Memphis and its citizens. And in the process, he managed to gain many of the votes because his people believed in him. That is because he knew his city so well and the issues that he was tackling affected most of Memphis's population and they knew that Lawler would do something about it.

Furthermore, his geographic wasn't NEARLY as large as Linda McMahon's (in this debate). He only needed to cover the large city of Memphis. Compared to the rest of the United States, that's like maintaining order in the infant's bedroom of a 50 bedroom mansion with all the trimmings. A lot less ground to cover means more attention being paid to details, more time to listen to the citizens, and more involvement in the city's activities and culture.

I believe I've covered most of MRC's points and proven why Linda McMahon isn't much of a political powerhouse compared to Jerry Lawler. But, for the issues I have NOT covered, I will have to quote a few of the passages below and rebut them...

We can easily see here, that a job with such great import as the US senate, with the power to pass various bills and bits of legislation that could affect people across the nation would be better suited in the hands of someone who not only has had success with money, but also is a philanthropist and supporter of good causes.

According to WikiAnswers, the jobs of a US Senator are as follows:

-Proposes and votes on new national laws.
-As a U.S. Senator, votes on confirming federal judges and U.S.
Supreme Court Justices.

I don't see how a philanthorpist would do any good when it comes to voting on laws and electing Supreme Court Justices. She may know the inner workings of her company, but the United States of America is slightly larger than the WWE . There is a lot more detail and many more laws to be considered as a senator versus a mayor, as well as many more voices to listen to when it comes to the citizens of America. I find it hard to believe that Linda is aware of the lifestyles of every state in the USA and can keep up with all of their dissimilarities.

Having spent most of his life in the ring or at least near it, a sudden shift to administrative work, even in a town he loves, could not be said to be as thrilling to him.

He's a grown man making his own decisions to run for political office not once, but TWICE. Obviously, there got to be some kind of thrill for him in the world of politics for him to take more than one shot at gaining a place in office.

Would he perform his job as well as he could, if his true passion of wrestling beckons? I don't know. Voting someone in on popularity, rather than personal merits is probably not a great indication of how they will do.

On the other hand, politics mostly becomes a popularity contest. Furthermore, just because someone is especially popular and (historically) has more expertise in a different line of work, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be fit for political office. Let's take a look at popular figures that have gained office in most recent history:

Arnold Schwarzenegger

- Opposed the amendment of the Three Strikes Law in California
- signed a bill creating the nation’s first cap on greenhouse gas emissions

- On September 27, 2006 Schwarzenegger signed a bill creating the nation’s first cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The law set new regulations on the amount of emissions utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants are allowed to release into the atmosphere. Schwarzenegger also signed a second global warming bill that prohibits large utilities and corporations in California from making long-term contracts with suppliers who do not meet the state’s greenhouse gas emission standards. The two bills are part of a plan to reduce California’s emissions by 25 percent to 1990’s levels by 2020. In 2005, Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling to reduce greenhouse gases to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Schwarzenegger signed another executive order on October 17, 2006 allowing California to work with the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. They plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by issuing a limited amount of carbon credits to each power plant in participating states. Any power plants that exceed emissions for the amount of carbon credits they have will have to purchase more credits to cover the difference. The plan is set to be in effect in 2009. In addition to using his political power to fight global warming, the governor has taken steps at his home to reduce his personal carbon footprint. Schwarzenegger has adapted one of his Hummers to run on hydrogen and another to run on biofuels. He has also installed solar panels to heat his home.

In respect of his contribution to the direction of the US motor industry, Schwarzenegger was invited to open the 2009 SAE World Congress in Detroit, on April 20, 2009.

It sounds to me like he's been busy and fairly successful in his political office. And to think, just like Lawler, Arnold had his own trouble with the law, including allegations of sexual and personal misconduct.

Ronald Reagan

During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan pursued policies that reflected his personal belief in individual freedom, brought changes domestically, both to the U.S. economy and expanded military, and contributed to the end of the Cold War. Termed the "Reagan Revolution," his presidency would reinvigorate American morale and reduce the people's reliance upon government.

An example of another successful celebrity politician, not to mention one of the most remembered and respected presidents in recent history.

What has Jerry Lawler done for Memphis besides make them cheer him? And what will he do if elected? He might show up to events and smile and wave, but how much progress could he really make?

Being that he was a citizen of the great city for such a long time, his involvement and contributions with organizations within Memphis prove his dedication to improving all aspects of the office that he wishes to take. He has already shown interest in reducing lowering property taxes and fixing Memphis's biggest issue... reducing the crime rate. Being that Lawler was a citizen of Memphis, a servant of Memphis, and an entertainer of Memphis, there is no doubt that he would be the best representative of Memphis.

Linda McMahon, as skilled and business-savy as she is, would probably do a decent job as a US Senator with a mediocre-at-best understanding of her position. But considering his background and relationship within the city that he wishes to serve, Lawler would clearly be superior (in comparison to McMahon in his debated political office).

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Hello again D-Man. As I'm sure I've said, this probably isnt the best debate to showcase my skills. It certainly is a tough debate, and it's hard to gauge where exactly we can get our sources from, judging from the lack of experience both have outside of wrestling. Anyways, here we go.

It seems as if the basis of MRC's debate is in regards to Linda McMahon's experience in building hype and awareness about certain political and social organizations. However, I fail to see any correlation with Linda's ability to handle the political office. Yes, she is more than capable of running a business, but being a senator is about much more than cheerleading an effort to raise awareness and gain members of existing organizations. Political officers are voted in because they are the most qualified for improving the ways of life of a specific geographic and attempting to correct any existing problems that lie therein.

On the contrary, I think this has a lot to do with politics, and I think McMahon would be able to handle a lot of this with ease. Having been presents during the WWF's steroid scandal of the 90's, she could handle any pressures put to her during her time in office. Politics itself is mostly a popularity contest, and havign major influence with social and political organizations will no doubt give her greater pull than most. I would be confident that she could do well at her job, and cheerleading for different pieces of legislation is basically in the job description of a senator.

Most of the Senate is based on the premise of bribery and favors. You sign this bill for me, and I'll do a little something for you. We can't say for sure that Linda McMahon would be squeaky clean on this front, but we can probably judge from her extensive charity work, as well as the fact she has money already, that she would put the interests of the people before herself. The Senate isnt as sqeuaky clean as we would all believe, and numerous scandals have broken out in recent years in relation to Senators. The issues are mostly financial, such as Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) convicted on 7 counts of bribery and tax evasion October 27, 2008. Finance is something Linda has a good background in. She would fit right in.

Furthermore, Linda McMahon isn't running for a small office in this debate... we're debating on whether she'd make a good impact as a member of the US fucking Senate.

I could guarantee that she would make a better Senator than Jerry Lawler would make Mayor. As you have clearly delinated, she has business expertise. She has had experience running a large corporation. She knows what works and what doesn't. This can only benefit the Senate and its passing of Bills and whatnot.

I just don't believe that her leadership roles are fit for being a senator. She has a large demographic to cover in the United States, many voices to listen to, and I believe she'd be lost in the shuffle next to others on the senate. Not to mention that her leadership and decisions will only be effective if she has an audience that will listen to them and obide by them.

But what is there in anything we've seen that would suggest that this would happen. Shouldn't being "lost in the shuffle" occur to all Senators? I personally have never worked under Linda McMahon, but I would be quite sure that her job as CEO would not have been kept for so long, had she not been a good leader.

Your last statement, which I have handily bolded is pretty obvious isn't it. Of course her leadership won't be effective if no one listens. Obama wouldn't be president if people didn't like him. The fact of the matter is, we have no proof whatsoever that she won't be listened to, and thus we can't say that her leadership is faulty. Her leadership has been tested far more that Lawlers, who has been an exployee for most of his life. While he may have been a leader in a locker room, he has never had to rely on himself completely. There were always other wrestler to take up a bit of the load, especially in the WWE. When in office, his leadership alone must steer Memphis.

However, Jerry Lawler is a man that built his entire adolescent life and career around Memphis, Tennessee. He is an icon amongst its population and is one of the most well-respected men in the city's history. There is no doubt that the people of Memphis would respect any of his decision-making, team with him to solve problems and conflicts, and stand by him no matter what blemishes there are in his track record./QUOTE]

But heres the thing. We are discussing who would be better at their particular job. It isn't simply a popular contest, or an argument over who would win. This is an argument over who would do better? Sure Lawler would win and be infinately popular, but what would he bring to the table? How could he help Memphis to do more than Linda McMahon in the senate?

He had been down this road before and had already begun to tackle major issues that were affecting Memphis and its citizens. And in the process, he managed to gain many of the votes because his people believed in him. That is because he knew his city so well and the issues that he was tackling affected most of Memphis's population and they knew that Lawler would do something about it.

You did pretty well to answer my question, even though I'm not quite sure what issues he is tackling. however, in all the campaign promises he's making, I would suggest that the votes are coming more from popularity over name value than anything else. I may be wrong, but any of the issues he wished to tackle have no doubt been tried by previous runners. However, it is thus with all campaigns, with many promises and few results. Although Lawler may deliver, how can the public be sure? How can they know Lawler would do something about it? He has almost no experience in the council system outside of running back in 1999. Are the residents of Memphis really so wise as to put their trust into such a rookie on the field? The fact of the matter is, how much could he himself do?

Furthermore, his geographic wasn't NEARLY as large as Linda McMahon's (in this debate). He only needed to cover the large city of Memphis. Compared to the rest of the United States, that's like maintaining order in the infant's bedroom of a 50 bedroom mansion with all the trimmings. A lot less ground to cover means more attention being paid to details, more time to listen to the citizens, and more involvement in the city's activities and culture.

In response to this, I can only say that each state in the US to my knowledge has two Senators. They work together to represent the state, and with other Senators to make the decisions about the country. Very democratic and very controlled. I think this cuts down the large area that must be covered greatly. But I understand what you mean in terms of her keeping abreast of issues in the country. She has remained adamant that she knows what she has to do, and I agree with her:

"...the issues that are facing this country," she said. "We've got this unbelievable debt. We've got people out of work ... I hope that the focus in this campaign will be on the serious nature of the issues that are facing this country."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_bi_ge/us_wwe_ceo_senate

This is right up her alley. She realises the financial problems that are taking hold of the US right now, and as a business woman, she knows what do to about it. This is a great way to show that she will do the better job. She has just as much expertise on broad issues like the economy as Lawler has on Memphis.

I don't see how a philanthorpist would do any good when it comes to voting on laws and electing Supreme Court Justices. She may know the inner workings of her company, but the United States of America is slightly larger than the WWE

It's not that it helps her decision making directly, but we can see from this what kind of person she is. If she were to dedicate her life to public service in the Senate, we could be assured that she is more a woman of the people, and fighting for people that don't have as many opportunities as she has done through her work. And the fact of the matter is, although America is larger, it has the same issues that any business, even the WWE would have. Financial problems and dealing with the budget. Unruly workers and unions (Yes, you Orton). Things would need to be built up (whether new roads or a PPV) and paperwork would need to be passed (I dont know, make up your own analogy, scripts?).

. There is a lot more detail and many more laws to be considered as a senator versus a mayor, as well as many more voices to listen to when it comes to the citizens of America. I find it hard to believe that Linda is aware of the lifestyles of every state in the USA and can keep up with all of their dissimilarities.

She doesnt have to be aware. They are 98 other Senators that deal with their own states. She herself has only to deal with her own state, of which she represents the people. That would be Conneticut, the HQ of her work, the WWE. Look at this baby:

It would also be the State where she is on the Board of Education. I would say she has gotten to know the public pretty well around the state. She would decide what is best in the interests of the people of Conneticut.

On the other hand, politics mostly becomes a popularity contest. Furthermore, just because someone is especially popular and (historically) has more expertise in a different line of work, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be fit for political office.

No, it doesn't mean this at all. Ronald Regan WAS beloved. But should we really make this the rule? We cannot assume that just because few did well, that Lawler will automatically make a great Mayor.

Linda McMahon, as skilled and business-savy as she is, would probably do a decent job as a US Senator with a mediocre-at-best understanding of her position. But considering his background and relationship within the city that he wishes to serve, Lawler would clearly be superior (in comparison to McMahon in his debated political office).

I disagree. I would say Linda McMahon knows exactly her position and what she wants to do. She made strong statements to the press, with this:

"Washington is out of control, and sadly, Senator Chris Dodd has lost his way and our trust,I can't sit by on the sidelines anymore knowing that I have both the experience and the strength to stand up to special interests and bring badly needed change to Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091603452.html

She is confident in her ability to bring change, but more importantly, she is PASSIONATE. She wants to help the state and the people, and is really driven to do something. She is driven to make changes, driven to do the paperwork, to fix the economy. Backed up with her experience, she would make a far better Senator than Lawler would mayor. IMO.

 

[D-Man]

Most of the Senate is based on the premise of bribery and favors. You sign this bill for me, and I'll do a little something for you. We can't say for sure that Linda McMahon would be squeaky clean on this front, but we can probably judge from her extensive charity work, as well as the fact she has money already, that she would put the interests of the people before herself. The Senate isnt as sqeuaky clean as we would all believe, and numerous scandals have broken out in recent years in relation to Senators. The issues are mostly financial, such as Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) convicted on 7 counts of bribery and tax evasion October 27, 2008. Finance is something Linda has a good background in. She would fit right in.

Basically, you helped out my debate with this paragraph. To reiterate, you're basically saying that Linda McMahon will likely fall into the category of being a "crooked politician." Therefore, all of her charitable contributions, her social-work, her financial know-how, and experience in running sections of the WWE will all be null and void due to the fact that she'll fall victim to another political scandal. In turn, this will ruin her creditability and make her an awful choice for the office of a US Senator, as well as any other political or professional office. The last thing the United States needs at this point is another scandal. I'm glad that we agree that voting her in would be a bad choice.

I could guarantee that she would make a better Senator than Jerry Lawler would make Mayor. As you have clearly delinated, she has business expertise. She has had experience running a large corporation. She knows what works and what doesn't. This can only benefit the Senate and its passing of Bills and whatnot.

How does running a company based around television programming and merchandise sales have anything to do with passing laws and confirming Supreme Court justices? Like I was insinuating in my previous post, with her experience in running fundraisers and organizing efforts in chartiable organizations, Linda would make a great campaign manager. However, taking the actual office is a completely different animal. And no matter what is posted on websites having to do with her political campaign, she does not know enough about the United States political system to take the office of US Senator. I think she'll do well if she began on a lower-scale position in politics (such as mayor or governor), but jumping right into the US Senate is stretching her capabilities and expertise a bit.

But what is there in anything we've seen that would suggest that this would happen. Shouldn't being "lost in the shuffle" occur to all Senators? I personally have never worked under Linda McMahon, but I would be quite sure that her job as CEO would not have been kept for so long, had she not been a good leader.

So you're saying that being married to Vince didn't help her keep her position and job? I haven't worked for the WWE, either, but I doubt that Vince would make his own wife step down from a position if it wasn't properly run. How do we know that Vince didn't hold her hand throughout her decision-making in the WWE? Or Stephane's hand? Or Shane's, for that matter? We don't. But just because she held a position in the WWE, being that she's married to Vince, it brings up a concern of whether she truly 'deserved' that position or not. Let's face it... this IS the internet wrestling community, where we all think that HHH gets a rub because he's banging Stephanie. Who's to say that Linda isn't in the same position?

Lawler, on the other hand and to my knowledge, has never been personally involved with any higher-ups in the WWE, so his position is completely justified. At least we know what hand we're being dealt with Jerry Lawler.

Your last statement, which I have handily bolded is pretty obvious isn't it. Of course her leadership won't be effective if no one listens. Obama wouldn't be president if people didn't like him.

I've got to slightly disagree here. Obama received most of his votes because of two reasons...

1. He is black and received the majority of the black vote.
2. People wanted change. Many of them didn't care for Obama, but they didn't like Bush or the previous repulican-run presidency.

Linda McMahon is jumping into the senate to try and solve problems that the nation has been having for decades. Her position and running scheme is very generic for the US Senate. Many senators that have come before couldn't solve these "generic" problems so what makes Linda so different? Not to mention the fact that she is a republican. After Bush's presidential terms, Republicans have been given a bad name and are now known as killers of the country's economy. And the people should vote her into the office and believe that she will do a better job of fixing our economy? I think not.

Jerry Lawler plans on taking office to correct the mistakes of the current mayor of Memphis, Myron Lowery. Since Lowery has been in office, the crime rate has drastically risen and the streets are no longer safe for the citizens of Memphis. Jerry is in a position to actually take the problems occurring in Memphis and produce change. His mission is to not just tackle the problems occurring in Memphis, but solve those problems.

Linda McMahon will make an effort, but she'll fail just as miserably as the senators that have come before her.

The fact of the matter is, we have no proof whatsoever that she won't be listened to, and thus we can't say that her leadership is faulty. Her leadership has been tested far more that Lawlers, who has been an exployee for most of his life. While he may have been a leader in a locker room, he has never had to rely on himself completely. There were always other wrestler to take up a bit of the load, especially in the WWE. When in office, his leadership alone must steer Memphis.

Wow... this is a BOLD statement (no pun intended). Not to mention that it couldn't be further from the truth.

Professional wrestlers are independent contractors that work under the umbrella of a promotion for a limited period of time. The WWE and TNA provide extended contracts to these wrestlers, but they're mostly in business for themselves. For you to say that a pro-wrestler doesn't make their job work "on their own" is a complete insult to every worker in the industry.

Yes, they need another wrestler to make a match work, but senators need to lean on each other, just the same.

And what's an "exployee"? Was that a typo? If not, I'm assuming that it means someone that's been out of work for most of their career? If that's what you're saying, then you're sorely mistaken. Lawler has been a mainstay from promotion to promotion since 1970, with one break in between when his ex-wife was fired by the WWE back in 2001, but he returned only 9 months later.

But heres the thing. We are discussing who would be better at their particular job. It isn't simply a popular contest, or an argument over who would win. This is an argument over who would do better? Sure Lawler would win and be infinately popular, but what would he bring to the table? How could he help Memphis to do more than Linda McMahon in the senate?

Just like I mentioned above, the problems that Linda is trying to tackle in the US Senate have been the same problems that this country has been having since World War II. Her campaign will be just like others before her, but if elected, her term will be just as useless.

On the other hand, Lawler is tackling problems in Memphis that CAN be solved...

For months now, I've been talking about cleaning up this city. I've been talking about reducing crime. I've been talking about eliminating wasteful spending in our city budget, eliminating cronyism, and giving this city back to the people.

http://jerrylawler2009.com

If this isn't enough for you, just read Jerry's opening letter for his campaign here... http://www.jerrylawler2009.com/node/5. (I would paste it here, but it's a decent-sized read, and all of it is important.)

At one point in time, Memphis's crime rate wasn't nearly what it has been for the past decade. Therefore, I see crime as being a problem that CAN be solved by Jerry Lawler.

We've ALWAYS been in debt, as a country. How can Linda change this? Odds aren't in her favor...

You did pretty well to answer my question, even though I'm not quite sure what issues he is tackling. however, in all the campaign promises he's making, I would suggest that the votes are coming more from popularity over name value than anything else.

So you're trying to tell me that Linda McMahon won't use her notoriety to her advantage in the voting process?? Come on now... the WWE Universe will SURELY get behind her in this race and give her votes based on her populatiry. Especially considering that she's running for senator in CT where she lives and where the WWE HQ is located. She's no different than Lawler. They're BOTH smart.

I may be wrong, but any of the issues he wished to tackle have no doubt been tried by previous runners. However, it is thus with all campaigns, with many promises and few results. Although Lawler may deliver, how can the public be sure?

The same can be said for Linda McMahon. But the difference is that Linda is trying to change issues that have been plaguing our country for decades, throughout the ENTIRE NATION. That means her decisions in office must be smart enough to be on a level with President Obama. She's out of her league.

The issues that Lawler are tackling (as I stated earlier) haven't always been problems in Memphis. Lawler is trying to restore order, not rewrite the way our country has been run for decades.

How can they know Lawler would do something about it? He has almost no experience in the council system outside of running back in 1999. Are the residents of Memphis really so wise as to put their trust into such a rookie on the field? The fact of the matter is, how much could he himself do?

Once again, the same goes for Linda. But there is a difference... Lawler has campaigned before. He has a taste for politics. Linda is going into this ice-cold. She knows how to assist Vince in running the WWE, but she has no track record in the world of politics. If anyone is a rookie in this debate, it's Linda McMahon. So you should restate your questions (above) pertaining to Linda McMahon and her campaign in Connecticut. Lawler, believe it or not, is light-years ahead of her.

In response to this, I can only say that each state in the US to my knowledge has two Senators. They work together to represent the state, and with other Senators to make the decisions about the country. Very democratic and very controlled. I think this cuts down the large area that must be covered greatly. But I understand what you mean in terms of her keeping abreast of issues in the country. She has remained adamant that she knows what she has to do, and I agree with her:

"...the issues that are facing this country," she said. "We've got this unbelievable debt. We've got people out of work ... I hope that the focus in this campaign will be on the serious nature of the issues that are facing this country."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/...wwe_ceo_senate

This reinforces all of the things I had stated, earlier. And it brings up new issues... can she work side-by-side with another senator that isn't her life partner? Can she create harmony in a body of leadership such as the US Senate? There's a lot more pressure on her in this position than there is on Jerry Lawler in Memphis.

This is right up her alley. She realises the financial problems that are taking hold of the US right now, and as a business woman, she knows what do to about it. This is a great way to show that she will do the better job. She has just as much expertise on broad issues like the economy as Lawler has on Memphis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that she's the only financial guru that aimed to take office in the senate. And for all intensive purposes in this debate, we need to imagine that she has taken office, just as others have done before her. But what have they solved in terms of our country's financial debt?? NOTHING. Like I said before, at least Memphis's crime rate was low at one point in time. Sometimes it's easier to restore order than it is to create it. Linda has to create a brand new financial system for the entire country... Jerry just has to take Memphis where it's already been before.

It's not that it helps her decision making directly, but we can see from this what kind of person she is. If she were to dedicate her life to public service in the Senate, we could be assured that she is more a woman of the people, and fighting for people that don't have as many opportunities as she has done through her work. And the fact of the matter is, although America is larger, it has the same issues that any business, even the WWE would have.

The WWE's financial issues pale in comparison to the issues that have plagues the USA for decades. The WWE has been making money since the early 1980's. They've never been in the kind of financial turmoil and debt that our country has been facing. All we know is that Linda is good at maintaining a business if it's already making money. But, can she pull a business (or in this case, our country) OUT of debt?

Financial problems and dealing with the budget.

I already answered this.

Unruly workers and unions (Yes, you Orton).

This isn't even a problem in the US, as far as we know, so why does it matter?

Things would need to be built up (whether new roads or a PPV) and paperwork would need to be passed (I dont know, make up your own analogy, scripts?).

This just goes with the territory of being political figure, but how does it make her a better candidate than Lawler?

No, it doesn't mean this at all. Ronald Regan WAS beloved. But should we really make this the rule? We cannot assume that just because few did well, that Lawler will automatically make a great Mayor.

The reason why I mentioned that statement was because your argument stated that just you "can't vote for someone because of their personal merits." In other words, you're saying that just because you're a celebrity, that doesn't mean you'd do well in office. I claimed that celebrities HAVE done well in office before. So, you're trying to stick me with the same question twice, making me chase my tail. So, let's put a stop to this now and allow me to ask you a question... how about you give me reasons why a celebrity WOULDN'T do well in office?

I disagree. I would say Linda McMahon knows exactly her position and what she wants to do. She made strong statements to the press, with this:

"Washington is out of control, and sadly, Senator Chris Dodd has lost his way and our trust,I can't sit by on the sidelines anymore knowing that I have both the experience and the strength to stand up to special interests and bring badly needed change to Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091603452.html

Another generic statement. This doesn't paint a picture of what she's planning on doing if she takes office. It just says, "The last person in this position sucked and I'm going to do better." Doesn't everyone say that? The question is, will she be able to follow through with it? She's not convincing me of anything.

On the other hand, Lawler is CLEARLY stating his plan of attack here: http://www.jerrylawler2009.com/node/5

Once again, if it wasn't so long and filled with SO MANY DETAILED changes that he wishes to bring to the table, I'd paste it all in here. You see, he doesn't generalize... he knows EXACTLY what he wishes to and EXACTLY how he wishes to go about doing it.

Linda barely has a grasp on what she's getting herself into. Her generalized statements are just smoke and mirrors, allowing her to dance around informing us of her detailed intentions, should she be voted into office.

Linda has not given us insight into her plan of attack, nor has she given us any incentive that she can bring about any type of change in our troubled country. However, I know exactly what Jerry Lawler can do if he's voted in, how he's going to go about doing it, and I know that he CAN do it. This leads me to believe that he'll do a MUCH better job in his potential office than Linda McMahon.

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity Of Debate - D-Man had the clean debate here. He gets this point.

Punctuality: Well I can't see why MRC was not on time. So he gets the point. D-man was late a couple times.

Informative: Both had lots of information, D-Man probably had more information, but a lot I didn't feel had to do with the debate. However, I think D-Man was better there to argue the other points.

Emotionality: Thought MRC came in here with a much better attitude, and it showed in his passion for Linda McMahon. Leads me to the next point

Persuasion: Where I feel that MRC dominated. I really don't think that Linda McMahon has a shot of becoming the Senator for the great state of...well you know, that New England state.

TM rates this 3 points MRC to 2 points D-Man

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity Of Debate: D-Man, always, always remember to open up with an argument of your own rather than going straight for your opponent's posts.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

Punctuality: Read TM's post.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

Informative: Mantaur Rodeo Clown, are you even from America? If not, then I commend you for even knowing about Connecticut. Even TM didn't remember the state Linda McMahon was campaigning in, and I think he's majoring in American history.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

Emotionality: I'll give you a point here, D-Man. Mantaur Rodeo Clown's not a very passionate person, although he is very, very funny.

Point: D-Man

Persuasion: Mantaur Rodeo Clown, if this debate is any indication, you are a state and local politics master. Maybe TM will be able to give you another debate topic next week that will make you jump for joy and make everyone else die from boredom.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

tdigle's Score

Mantaur Rodeo Clown: 4
D-Man: 1

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Damn D-Man always starts out clean and clear.

Point: The D-Man

Punctuality: D-Man was late a few times.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

Informative: I think D-Man did a great job bringing in his information. MRC may not be from this country, but D-Man brought up points that Jerry will be addressing as Mayor, and that they can be reformed, unlike the known issues in the Senate that have yet to be dealt with.

Point: The D-Man

Emotionality: Both had to do a lot of work, but I think the fact that MRC is not from the US, and he came up with his information showed his grit.

Point: Mantaur Rodeo Clown

Persuasion: D-Man did a great job. I would have thought, "Well Jerry is a former wrestler, has had his unpleasant spots, whereas Linda is more behind the scenes." But no, D-Man persuaded me into thinking that Jerry could actually do a great job as Mayor of Memphis. I don't think Linda would do as good a job in Senate as Jerry could do as Mayor.

Point: The D-Man

CH David scores this D-Man 3, Mantaur Rodeo Clown 2.

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Mantaur had the clearer posts, which is rare for a debate involving D-Man

Point: MRC

Punctuality: TM and all the others gots this covered

Point: MRC

Informative: Erm, CH David and TM explained this better than I could, or care too

Point: The D-Man

Emotionality: Jerry Lawler = Mayor Quimby lol

Point: MRC

Persuasion: Erm, MRC for the win here too

Point: MRC

Miko scores this

The D-Man - 1
names too long - 4

 

[Murfish]

Clarity: MRC: His points were more concise and effective. As I will say later in the post D-Man had more gaps in his argument.
Punctuality: MRC: See TM.
Informative: D-Man: He provided a lot of Lawler info and even some information on other 'famous' political figures.
Emotionality: D-Man: Throughout the debate D-Man felt more connected. It seemed like he truly thought Lawler would become a great mayor and gave the guy a lot of backing.
Persuasion: MRC: Reading through each side, I found MRC's posts to be more persuasive. There were also less gaps in the argument.

D-Man: 2
MRC: 3