« Terrorist Competition | Main | Shameless »
Now That I've Seen It
Okay, now I've actually seen the debate. Here's the thing I didn't see discussed much -- during the discussion of domestic policy, which went on for quite some time, Edwards positively owned Cheney. Not only does Edwards ooze compassion, but Cheney couldn't even feign any sort of interest in the subject matter. What's more, the Bush-Cheney domestic policy record is clearly indefensible: Does anyone really think Dick Cheney is enthusiastic about that Medicare bill? Of course not. That whole segment was a walkover. To call the more memorable national security section a draw, as the CW does, seems about right to me. Neither side had some kind of devastating, earth-shattering arguments. It comes down to what you think about the world. If the course we're on right now seems like a good one, then Cheney's arguments will seem plausible. If not, then, well, not.
So insofar as you're scoring this like a boxing match -- round one, round two, round three, etc. -- you come down with a clear win for Edwards. But "draw" is also a plausible description of the dynamics, since they basically fought to a standstill at the emotional high-point of the contest. Today's Post editorial says nothing happened to break the Kerry campaign's momentum, which I think is right. If anything, the VP's competent performance just cast Bush in a worse light than ever. Virtually everyone else on the planet can mount a more coherent defense of Republican policies than can the GOP's leader.
October 6, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83456e7fe69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now That I've Seen It:
» What gravitas? from Majikthise
Cheney disgraced himself last night. Cheney had more to prove than Edwards. He has been the Republicans' touchstone grownup for the last four years. Instead of showing grace under pressure, Cheney was rude, defensive, and peevish. Far from projecting g... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 11:14:05 AM
» Delusions from Balloon Juice
Last week, I think you would have to search pretty far and wide to find ANYONE who did not think... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 1:02:51 PM
» The Veep Debate: A Classic Draw? from The Moderate Voice
A see-saw Vice Presidential debate featured Vice President Dick Cheney and John Edwards showing off some of their best -- and least-best stuff -- and it ended in a draw. (See below on polls which don't agree. But then we [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 1:14:46 PM
» my debate schezum flazum from the leftorium.com
Now That I've Seen It | Matthew Yglesias Finally, I agree with something this guy writes. (Edit: that statement is false, see here) But, I think Matthew nailed this one right on the head. The debates are really interesting to... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 9:57:45 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:36:09 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:38:07 AM
Comments
This is pretty much the way I read it, too. It was about the fifty minute mark when they switched to domestic policy, and Edwards totally hit his stride. Cheney, for his part, didn't exactly look lost (not if we compare him to his boss last week...), but certainly didn't have the same sharp edge he had on defense policy.
If I had to include accuracy of claims in scoring the defense part of the debate, I'd say Edwards also won that part hands down. Much of the American public, though, will probably be taken in by Dick's lies, which makes that part probably a draw.
Posted by: litho | Oct 6, 2004 9:38:19 AM
I thought Cheney won on points in that snooze of a debate, but agree that neither candidate did anything that is likely to affect the outcome of the main event.
http://newcenturyjournal.blogspot.com/2004/10/veep-deep-sleep.html
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 6, 2004 9:38:26 AM
Edwards did something slick at the transition point in the debate. When the moderator asked a foreign policy question, and announced that it would be the *last* such question, Edwards used most of his time in answering it to present a list of *domestic* policy points. He thus laid down some markers, and seized the initiative from Cheney, after being a bit back on his heels during the foreign policy portion.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 6, 2004 9:43:17 AM
"Virtually everyone else on the planet can mount a more coherent defense of Republican policies than can the GOP's leader."
Well, I can't disagree with that; I thought four years ago that the Republican ticket was upside down, and nothing since has changed my mind. Best thing for the country would have been if Bush had a heart attack leaving the inauguration.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Oct 6, 2004 9:51:07 AM
>Best thing for the country would have been if Bush had a heart attack leaving the inauguration.
Well, it would have been great for the construction industry ion DC, as Barad-Dur was built over the razed Lincoln memorial, but I'm not sure I'd describe installing a man who makes Kissinger look like Jimmy Carter as president as the "best thing" for your country.
But hey, he didn't tear Edwards' throat out with his teeth, and that's good for your side.
Posted by: Finny | Oct 6, 2004 10:16:53 AM
What does it mean to win these debates? It seems to me that all you want to do is present your positions. Who stylistically does this better and "wins on the points" doesn't really matter? It would if this was a high school debate, but it's not.
Kerry shouldn't talk about domestic issues at all. Their talking points are awful in my opinion. I thought I was listening to Al Gore all over again last night. You guys like them, but I think a lot of people have a gut level dislike for them.
They really should just go around saying that Iraq and the economy suck. And be as vague as they possible can be on everything else.
Posted by: Chad | Oct 6, 2004 10:19:54 AM
Cheney violated rule no. 6 of getting re-hired. never make your boss look bad. It's pretty obvious who the 'real" President is now, especially after last Thurs. nite's disaster for bu$h. Cheney just underlined for everyone what a putz bu$h really is. Edward's held his own but lacked much gravitas and that hurt him. Cheney on the other hand looked bored and tired and more then a little annoyed that he (the President) had to even debate this guy. Like his boss they both showed the American public and the world how dismissive and arrogant they really are. Nobody likes to be treated condscendingly and bu$h/Cheney are masters of just that.
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 6, 2004 10:21:46 AM
I am a little suprised that Edwards did not pre-empt Cheney with some comments about the Bush campaign being about the appearance of being resolute, and that they will seem certain yet they are wrong. And everytime Cheney brought up Kerry's record, I am suprised that Edwards did not say that this administration has a record, and that record is failure coupled with excuses.
Posted by: theCoach | Oct 6, 2004 10:28:02 AM
The consensus seems to be that it's irrelevant that Cheney said that lots of things which were just plain not true, and that the debate should be scored as a performance. Doens't make sense to me, but I guess that's what makes me a paranoid extremist.
If I were to say what Brett Bellmore said, it might be misinterpreted, so, for the record, I'm not saying it and never have said it. Republicans can get away with anything.
Chad is just projecting his own prejudices. Gore won the popular vote, if you haven't heard that. If it's Chad from Georgia, the Democrats would be stupid to campaign for the Georgia vote -- one of the hopeless states, last I looked. In politics you try to make a lot of people happy, but some people you just try to make unhappy by whipping their right-wing butts.
There are many fine and decent people trapped in that state, and I'd like to offer my condolences.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 6, 2004 10:34:23 AM
I've been thinking about it this morning -- 20-20 hindsight -- and I think I see one big opportunity that Edwards missed. When Cheney said that he didn't know the data about women and AIDS in the US, Edwards could have gone shocked, and made a statement about the responsibility of leadership to be informed to make good public policy.
He could have talked about the inability of the Bush-Cheney administration to walk and chew gum at the same time and their lack of attention to serious domestic programs.
And, finally, he could have questioned whether, after so many years in public life, Cheney may not have lost intererest. He may be ready for retirement after having lost the zip on his fastball and the snap on his curve.
Posted by: John Kubie | Oct 6, 2004 10:38:42 AM
My biggest problem with Edwards’ performance last night was that he never really took a position of his own. He was incapable of going through a single answer without mentioning Kerry. Don't tell me what Kerry thinks - or what he has told you to think - tell me what you believe. Edwards came across as Kerry's spokesman, Chaney came across as Bush's partner. While Edwards sounded great on the domestic issues, I could feel taxes going through the roof with every new sentence. I don't know why Kerry and Edwards are so determined to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. The bottom line is, there were real links between Saddam and terror organizations (Ramzi Yousef / Al-Zarqawi). Why try to separate Saddam from the terrorists when he was right there in the thick of it. He offered money to the families of suicide bombers and had schools filled with equipment for suicide bombers. He was a huge supporter of terror, with huge volumes of money and influence around the world. Put that with his history of using chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs he was so elusive about, and an extremely hostile demeanor to the West, and I don't think you need a stockpile of nukes to call him a threat. So why do Kerry and Edwards want the separation? My thought is that allows them to attack the administration and still claim to support the war on terror. Just remember, in any conflict - the enemy has a vote. So before you say there was no plan, look at how the plan worked and where the enemy actions required changes to the plan. Right now there are more Iraqis are being killed and injured than Americans. They are taking over, and based on what I have seen in the news over the last three months - I would say we are getting better info on where the insurgents are and being able to strike at them. Looks as though there may have been a plan in getting the Iraqis up and running on their own, and supporting them- rather than dumping in more troops and just owning the country forever. I still want to see how Kerry intends to hunt down terrorist all over the globe if he doesn't want to support arms and equipment for us. I may vote for Kerry yet, but he is going to have to stop with the bull and give real answers.
If I need a personal injury lawyer, I wouldn't mind having Edwards. The way he can support Kerry's soft positions it's no wonder he got so much money for his clients.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 6, 2004 10:40:08 AM
One other comment. Gwen Ifill was awful. She announced the switch to domestic issues with 45 minutes to go, but then asked a bunch of personal questions (Is Edwards prepared?), asked that really strange question about not mentioning names, asked two questions about malpractice lawyers, but missed many major issues. Among the really big issues barely touched were energy, education and the environment. Energy is a particular egregious miss since Cheney was the head of the Energy Task Force which has a lot of explaining to do. I, too thought that Edwards was far better than Cheney on domestic issues, but he had a hard time finding time to talk about these issues.
Posted by: John Kubie | Oct 6, 2004 10:42:57 AM
I didn't miss the energy discussion until John Kubie just mentioned it. Damn, what a missed opportunity! Maybe we'll get to it on Friday.
Since I listened to the debate, I couldn't see whether Cheney slumped & sagged during the domestic portion. But Edwards certainly showed interest, by often saying "I can't wait to talk about health care," and so forth.
It would've been classy of Edwards to thank Cheney for twice declining Ifill's invitations to attack Edwards personally for being a lawyer.
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 6, 2004 11:05:29 AM
Another missed opportunity that I saw for Edwards goes a little somethin' like this:
E: 90% of coalition casualties have come from the US.
C: Dead wrong. If you include Iraqis it is 50%.
Better retort: So, let me get this straight. I present the facts that 90% of coalition casualties have been from the US, and your defense is that a lot of Iraqis have died as well? Frankly, I think you were better off when you were trying to hide the number of Iraqi civilian casualties.
Posted by: theCoach | Oct 6, 2004 11:14:15 AM
Brett Bellmore,
"I thought four years ago that the Republican ticket was upside down, and nothing since has changed my mind. Best thing for the country would have been if Bush had a heart attack leaving the inauguration."
The scary part is that the reverse is much more likely.
Posted by: Tripp | Oct 6, 2004 11:14:59 AM
"The consensus seems to be that it's irrelevant that Cheney said that lots of things which were just plain not true, and that the debate should be scored as a performance."
Exactly.
"If it's Chad from Georgia, the Democrats would be stupid to campaign for the Georgia vote -- one of the hopeless states, last I looked. "
It is the Chad from Georgia.
"Their talking points are awful in my opinion. I thought I was listening to Al Gore all over again last night. You guys like them, but I think a lot of people have a gut level dislike for them."
Some people would say I was projecting my opinions, but if we're calling them prejudices these days that's fine.
Posted by: Chad | Oct 6, 2004 11:18:25 AM
It struck me that Ifill may have avoided several key domestic topics correctly sensing that Edwards would crush Cheney on them. Which would make her massively partisan, with a smile. I liked Edwards simply ignoring her alleged subject on the last question and hammering domestic policy. She had that coming.
Marshall suggests that the next week will see the Dems whipping lie after lie from Cheney out of a hat for the media. They have plenty of material, starting with the photo of him standing right next to Edwards in the Senate. Kos has it up. Lying or senile: let the voters choose.
Posted by: John Isbell | Oct 6, 2004 11:24:09 AM
Virtually everyone else on the planet can mount a more coherent defense of Republican policies than can the GOP's [nominal] leader.
In any case, note that on domestic issues Cheney didn't even friggin' try to mount a conservative defense, aside from the standard trial lawyer stuff. It was a liberal defense of Bush's domestic policies.
Posted by: praktike | Oct 6, 2004 11:34:06 AM
One other comment. Gwen Ifill was awful.
No questions on the environment, education, health care (tort reform question doesn't count), energy, or civil liberties.
But hey, who cares about these piddling issues when there is gay marriage and 'flip flopping' to talk about?
Gwen Awful is a hack.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 6, 2004 11:37:49 AM
Coach,
I think Cheney is only talking about the Iraqis who have died fighting for our side - that is the newer Iraqi soldiers and police that have been recruited since the occupation, and who are often victims of car bombings and other attacks. In fact, it is because these attacks have been so successful that the US-Allawi government has had such a hard time recruiting and training soldiers to take over following a US withdrawal.
Cheney is certainly not talking about Iraqi civilian casualties. I wish someone *would* talk about the civilian deaths - which most estimates place at between 10 and 30 times the number of US deaths. But the Kerry campaign doesn't like to bring it up either.
In his retort, Edwards stressed the word "coalition" to defend the 90% figure.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 6, 2004 11:45:26 AM
Dan,
I understood what Cheney was saying. Complete hosty and accuracy in the debates does not mean much. I wish it did, and I, too, wish we talked more about civilian casualties.
Regardless, the fact that Cheney's defense against Edwards assertion that the US was 90% of the casualties was that many many Iraqis were dying as well, is not a strong argument. Edwards could have shown that, but Ithink it ended up as a point of befuddlement for voters without a lot of background. If Cheney can make the undecideds befuddled about his administration's record, than he is doing his job. It would be preferrable for the Bush team to delude voters, but befuddled is a lot better than informed.
Posted by: theCoach | Oct 6, 2004 12:13:44 PM
Maybe it was coincidental but there was a palpable deflation of Cheney's energy after the gay marriage exchange. I half-expected a Scrooge/Grinch redemption right before our eyes. Ridiculous to hope for I suppose.
Posted by: Luke v. Darth | Oct 6, 2004 12:20:35 PM
"Frankly, I think you were better off when you were trying to hide the number of Iraqi civilian casualties."
He wasn't talking about civilian casualties, he was specifically referring to Iraqi security personnel. It doesn't change the fact that 90% of coalition forces are American. But it is a fact that it changes the % of the total force.
Posted by: Chad | Oct 6, 2004 12:30:12 PM
Chad,
See above regarding civilians. But if you would like, just take the word out: "Frankly, I think you were better off trying to keep the Americans in the dark regarding the extent of Iraqi casualties. That we have been unable to recruit effective Iraqi police is a direct result of the failure of your administration."
Posted by: theCoach | Oct 6, 2004 12:53:10 PM
Edwards definitely should have mentioned that we cannot trust our Iraqi allies. Some units have fled or changed sides, and many seem to have been infiltrated. There have been some very harsh consequences coming from this.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 6, 2004 12:58:00 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.