Post #177,928
10/5/04 10:25:11 PM
|
Edwards is losing
He's a terrible debater, nervous and fidgety. That said, the moderator's questions are stupid and vague. Neither person has really said much of anything other than campaign slogans. This woman is out of her league compared to the pointed questions of Lehrer last Thursday.
What does Edwards bring to the ticket? Not a hell of a lot. I still think he's slickly unctuous and he really puts me off. And how can you lose to Porkchop?
-drl
|
Post #177,929
10/5/04 10:43:19 PM
|
Lot of flailing going on
My perception is that there is a lot of flailing going on, and not a lot of hits landing. I think Cheney is better at debates, but Edwards has more personal charm. Neither one is doing particularly well answering questions, and both seem to wandering off in odd tangets and bringing up the official party lines over and over. I do agree that the moderator is not nearly as good, the questions are less interesting and a bit vague.
Overall, I think this debate is too close to call. Neither come off nearly as well as their presidential canidates. Edwards seem too much of a light weight, while Cheney comes across as a burecratic apparatchik.
Jay
|
Post #177,934
10/5/04 11:22:16 PM
|
They talked past each other.
I missed the first 15 minutes. I watched the PBS feed so I didn't see many "reaction shots".
My impressions:
Cheney was too obvious in changing the subject from things he didn't want to have to defend. He was very forceful in defending his position on Iraq.
Edwards brought up a lot of stuff and mentioned some of the poor choices the Bush administration has made. But he looked like an automaton in some of his answers. Ifill's question about describing the ticket without mentioning the presidential candidate's name was strange, but it really tripped up Edwards. And when he caught his mistake - twice - he laughed and it made his serious moments look like more of a performance.
Edwards didn't even try to defend his senate record (other than mentioning the patient's bill of rights and saying it's Bush's fault that it hasn't been passed) - he just said Cheney's record from when he was in the House was worse. Sheesh.
Edwards didn't do a good job in answering Ifill's question: How realistic is Kerry's plan to get foreign countries to share the burden in Iraq when France and Germany have said they're not going to send troops no matter who wins. I think that's a critical question that he and Kerry need to be able to explain.
Edwards did do a good job on the tax issues and some of the economics stuff. The Bush mantra that they won't raise taxes on people with over $200k/yr income because so many small businesses file using the individual tax law rather than the corporate, and they make the new jobs, etc., etc. is stupid. Change the law so that small businesses have reasonable tax rules rather than hiding millionaires behind them. Not everyone who makes over $200k is a small business person. Edwards annecdote about soldiers in Iraq paying higher tax rates than millionaires who collect dividends was on point.
I thought Cheney's closing statement was far too strident. We (and our children and grandchildren, if any) are all gonna die if they don't get reelected. Sheesh. Edwards wants us all to watch TV in the morning or something. :-/
I don't think Edwards damaged Cheney much if at all. I think Edwards did OK, but he wasn't a strong asset to Kerry's ticket tonight. Clark or even Dean would have been a much better opponent to Cheney tonight (but maybe weaker in other aspects).
I don't think it'll change the election results much. I don't think it'll help or hurt Edwards' future political chances much, if he has any.
The format caused some problems. They should have had more time to discuss the topics so that they would be forced to get beyond the sound-bites. I thought Ifill did a decent job given the constraints of the format. She didn't let Cheney or Edwards control the discussion.
It was a disappointing "debate". But not unexpected.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #177,936
10/5/04 11:27:41 PM
|
Re: They talked past each other.
I hope the swing voters were watching the Yanks-Twins. The underdog won, hint hint.
Seriously, Cheney succeeded in making Edwards look like a stupid kid (even though he's 50ish) and probably scared the piss out of a lot of the audience. Cheney should be running a taser factory. If he really wants to hurt the terrorists, he should offer them free dentistry.
There wasn't enough discussion about the economy. That's what matters to Ohioans.
-drl
|
Post #177,938
10/5/04 11:36:38 PM
|
Your planet?
Sorry, deSitter—I've learned to respect your opinions apart from certain areas I've simply fenced off from your comments, but I think you have this bass-ackwards. All Edwards had to do was not demonstrate himself a total lightweight, and as I viewed the confrontation he managed that. I speak here as a guy older than Edwards, and grumpily predisposed to finding fault with 'im.
cordially,
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
|
Post #177,940
10/5/04 11:45:02 PM
|
Re: Your planet?
The winner of any debate is the one who fires off the most insults within the context of the debate. Cheney basically said "You're a Senator? I work there and never met you until now - go figure." That was devastating. He avoided any damaging talk about Haliburton. He may have even broken the law by ordering the 9/11 shoot-down scramble without the President's OK. Somehow none of it got out in the open. That's a clear win in my mind.
-drl
|
Post #177,980
10/6/04 10:06:56 AM
|
"You're a Senator?"
DeSitter: Cheney basically said "You're a Senator? I work there and never met you until now - go figure." That was devastating. Ah, but it was also quite untrue: [link|http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000323.html|Unca Dick...lies. Surprise!] Never forget: George Bush is said to have once raped his father's dog Millie in the course of a drunken fraternity prank. Mayne it's true, maybe it ain't: we just don't know. But can we afford to return a possible poodle-puncher to our nation's highest office? Devastation R Us. cordially, Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
|
Post #177,984
10/6/04 10:36:45 AM
|
Cheney's been in the bunker for too long.
|
Post #177,986
10/6/04 10:38:16 AM
|
Re: "You're a Senator?"
From the link: Why would Cheney make a lie so obviously easy to expose? It's almost pathological -- reality need not get in the way of a good zinger. Yup. Soundbites 'R' Us! jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #177,990
10/6/04 11:06:26 AM
|
That particular phrase
made Cheyney look like a tight-ass principal talking to a wayward student. Not one of Cheyney's proudest moments.
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #178,018
10/6/04 12:38:40 PM
|
Sen Leahy spoke after the debate to NBC
and said that, yes, Cheney comes to congress on Tuesdays, but unlike past VP's, he only meets with Reps. So much for uniting people.
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #177,981
10/6/04 10:23:24 AM
|
No, underdog lost. Twins won. :-)
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #177,944
10/6/04 12:01:25 AM
|
Format is intentionally warped
The format is intentionally setup to make it easier for both canidates, but I don't think longer answer periods would help much with that problem. That would just give the canidates more time to dodge the questions. In some ways, I would like to see even shorter answer periods. That would give the moderator more questions and give the canidates less time to change the topic.
The one thing Ifill did that I liked was coming back to some questions that she didn't think where answered fully, and that is what the debate really needs more of. If the canidate dodges a question, the moderator should come back and answer the same or a more precise question, and the moderator has to have enough guts to call the canidate on it and ask the same question two, three or even more times.
Ideally of course, the canidates would be involved in several more debates. And the debates would feature different formats. One might have longer answer periods to allow for more complex questions, while another might let the canidates rebut each other multiple times for more interaction.
Jay
|
Post #177,945
10/6/04 12:08:54 AM
|
Ideal situation is to ditch the moderator completely...
...and let the candidates ask each other questions. If it were good enuf for Lincoln/Douglas, it should be good enuf fer these politicos.
|
Post #177,949
10/6/04 12:25:03 AM
|
Could be interesting
That could be interesting, but in today's political climate I don't think it would be that informative.
Bush: "Mr. Kerry, your record shows that you have flip-flopped again and again on every issue. Is it true that you have a love-child with a black mistress?
Kerry" "Mr. President, your time in office has been marked by failures of every kind, military, economic, political. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Jay
|
Post #177,968
10/6/04 8:20:49 AM
|
Re: Could be interesting
Bush: "Mr. Kerry, your record shows that you have flip-flopped again and again on every issue. Is it true that you have a love-child with a black mistress? Hey, it worked for Strom... In jest, -YendorMike
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
|
Post #177,971
10/6/04 8:37:36 AM
|
Re: Ideal situation is to ditch the moderator completely...
Let the candidates have a bitchslapping contest.
-drl
|
Post #177,969
10/6/04 8:24:22 AM
|
WashPost take.
Both were misleading. Surprised? [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html|Here]: Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.
[...]
Edwards asserted that "in the last four years, 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost." The actual number is close to 900,000 and will likely shrink further when Friday's jobs reports is released, though Bush is the first president in 72 years to preside over an overall job loss.
Edwards also misleadingly charged that the Bush administration is "for outsourcing of jobs." The Bush-Cheney ticket has not advocated sending jobs overseas, though administration officials have talked about how outsourcing can be good for the U.S. economy, a position many private economists echo. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #177,935
10/5/04 11:23:28 PM
|
Wot 'ee said.
What will be telling, methinks, is how Bush follows up in the next two debates. If he repeats his prior performance, he's sunk. If he actually pulls it together (which I'm sure they're working on right now) in the next two debates, then things are going to be CLOSE.
All I want for my birthday is a new President!
|
Post #177,937
10/5/04 11:35:00 PM
|
Nah, in the end, it's pretty much a tie.
If I was undecided, this debate would have done little to push me either way. Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards were simply talking past each other.
Agree that Gwen Ifill could have done better with the questions. She was not asking questions of prospective Miss Americas.
Alex
"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
|
Post #177,959
10/6/04 3:33:21 AM
10/6/04 3:34:28 AM
|
Not the debate I watched.
I agree (with others) - no clear 'winner' as in previous; but what does winner Mean? Is it like IQ #. This ain't digital. This was mixed 'wins', item-by-item IMO.
Agree too, that the moderator's questions were lame and allowed too much weaseling.. but Cheney's effort to swicth 'casualty count padding' to include *Iraqis! was beyond the pale: were they a party to the coalition of the bemused? The Two + Poland (though just recently recusing themselves) VS the 32ish who paid all but $5Bof the last 'thisshallnotstand' war? A patently false semantic trick; anyone who didn't spot it imediately is likely too uninformed to get anything else out of the material.
* would those include:
our 'collateral damage' from Day1? Women and children? Army casualties before/during/after the Flash n'Smash shows? Would these be the same folks who don't *ever* rate their own cell on the spreadsheet of the maimed? (just as those numbers for US new multi-plegics don't make it to the digital counters on news shows, either). Pshaw. Format provided no time to cross on that Stupid ploy...
Clearly Cheney's vast experience in the DC practice of bafflegab was his strong suit + the zinger on Edwards' voting record. OTOH, for those who haven't been noticing shit for about 1000 days - Edwards reminded about the disconnect of dropping Afghanistan (into now fortified enclaves + local dopelords) in order to pursue the PNAC fantasy of resolving 500 years of grudges within the attention span of a Murican Tee Vee addict.
Ditto re Halliburton's present legal difficulties over past behaviour == when the Veep was the CIEIO. Numbers were fudged (or just not responded to - Cheney's long suit).
So I think Cheney might have leveraged his experience in tactics expectedly-well, but Edwards got in lots of quips (for that small group who just might follow up on some of them - if these were really news, to some few effete undecideds. Cheney was utterly lame in the last question re "uniting - dividing" and how all this here polarization just might have come about -- gosh, I just Don't Know How all the problems just.. happened.. Leave mind at door for this grade of pabulum.
It could have been worse, sillier; but nobody can possibly expect Serious Debate here; anathema to the daily language murder we insist upon. Can't imagine one of these shows being stupider than the 2000 sham.. Well, yes I guess I Can.
moi
edit: add B
Edited by Ashton
Oct. 6, 2004, 03:34:28 AM EDT
|
Post #177,975
10/6/04 9:38:15 AM
|
Thank you.
Since when do we count enemy deaths as our own?
One thing apparently no one has picked up on is when Edwards raised the Gay Marriage issue. He made the point that it does not rise to the level of the Constitution (although he could have better made the point that the Constitution is not a document typically used to restrict or prohibit rights). Cheney left Dubya hanging. He did not choose to respond or in any way attack Edwards position.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #177,977
10/6/04 9:40:58 AM
|
No, I've read a few comments about that.
One (the source of which escapes me right now) pointed out that the only time Bush was mentioned was as the gay basher, in contrast to Cheney's position.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #177,982
10/6/04 10:27:21 AM
|
Ah. Okay. But there was one Edwards flub of note, imo.
I thought for sure when Cheney brought up the newspaper calling him "Senator Gone" that it was a perfect time for Edwards to say something like, "Well, Mr. Vice President, if you're getting some of your information from local newspapers, perhaps you should heed the advice of the President's local newspaper who just endorsed John Kerry and me." He missed it, and I doubt the opportunity will come again. Rats!
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #178,014
10/6/04 12:23:44 PM
|
I called it a draw
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #178,020
10/6/04 12:41:56 PM
|
Apparently Edwards won slightly
I'd also call it a draw.
But [link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml|http://www.cbsnews.c.../main641817.shtml] says that of 178 undecided voters, 41% thought that Edwards won, and 28% thought that Cheney won. The rest called it a draw. That'd be an Edwards victory in the only audience that matters. An online poll (yeah, I know the problems) at [link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/] also calls it an Edwards victory (at the moment 59% to 41%).
One amusing point: Cheney did a better job of defending Bush's policies than Bush did. Not totally surprising since they're actually mostly Cheney's policies...
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #178,041
10/6/04 5:49:16 PM
|
the polls are cranked.
I received an email on the eve of the vote from Joe Lockheart with all the links to vote on the debate and how to come off as an undecided while doing so. Immediately after the debate another email urging more of the same. Repos also doing the same thing.
regards,
daemon
|
Post #178,046
10/6/04 6:00:35 PM
|
That's only the online polls.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
