Well, two interesting thoughts occurred to me last night as I watched elder statesman and current VP, Dick Cheney, wring Senator Edwards out like an old dish rag:
- Both Kerry and Edwards have been employing a debate tactic against their rivals of dumping as much negative commentary and accusations as possible with each question they are given so as to either force the candidates to continually defend themselves or force them to leave some of those accusations unanswered, thus making their silence seem like assent.
- Edwards made the huge mistake last night of thinking that he could use his litigation experience to put Vice President Cheney on trial in front of an international audience.
Edwards came out like an over-eager and smug teenager who thinks himself ready to take on his college professor in a debate, and wound up looking like the freshman that he really is in the world of national politics. Why did Kerry pick this guy? Oh yeah, that's right, Edwards used his influence to force himself on Kerry. That explains it.
VP Cheney is what he is, an elder statesman and a man of honor who has served his country for a very long time. In many ways, he's also a policy wonk, just as Clinton and Gore were while in office. Even though he got the site, Factcheck.ORG (not ".com") wrong, he is, in his own way, his own Factcheck.org.
So, Edward's attempt to put Cheney on trial and deliver a few well-placed zingers failed miserably last night. Instead, Edwards walked away looking quite the amatuer while VP Cheney may well have stalled the momentum built up last week with Kerry's win over Bush in their first debate.
Only time will tell on that point. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to the Second Bush/Kerry debate on Friday. Be there or be a four-sided object with perfect 90 degree angles.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RJ
I agree that Cheney won the debate. But here are a couple points:
- These were the VP candidates, not the Prez candidates. It will not have anything near the impact of a Prez debate, because people do not go out on Election Day and vote for VP. They vote for Prez.
- Cheney won, sure, but he didn't destroy Edwards the same way Kerry whipped Bush. Always remember the priorities of the media. They will call a slight Cheney win a "tie" and call a solid Kerry win a "ass-thumping for the ages."
- While Cheney's performance will likely stop Kerry's momentum from the first debate, FOR NOW, JFK has an opportunity to regain it after the next Prez debate. If Bush doesn't at least match Kerry on domestic issues (and that's not exactly his strong suit), then Kerry will have the Big Mo again, and will likely tie this race, or even take a slight lead. If that's the case, Bush better win the final debate, of else ol' Genghis will probably become our next President...
2 - boomcrashbaby
76% of CNN voters say that Edwards won the debate, compared to 17% for Cheney.
41% of uncommitted voters here selected Edwards the winner to Cheney's 28%.
ABC polls declare Cheney the winner, 43% to 35%, but they note that there are more Republicans in the audience than Democrats, by 7%, so does that really qualify as 'wringing like a dish rag'? Reading this thread makes it sound like Cheney delivered a knockout punch in a boxing ring in Vegas, but outside of this thread, the rest of the world doesn't seem to reflect that.
It's interesting to note that on that same page on the ABC poll, that declared Cheney the winner, it also asks the 'vote preference' of the pollsters before and after the debate.
Before the debate, 51% leaned towards Bush/Cheney, after the debate 50%.
Before the debate 48% leaned towards Kerry/Edwards, after the debate 49%.
So even the poll that shows people think Cheney won the debate, it also shows more people decided to lean more towards Kerry AFTER the debate.
Even though he got the site, Factcheck.ORG (not ".com") wrong, he is, in his own way, his own Factcheck.org.
1) Cheney told Edwards to his face that they had never met before the debate, despite evidence they had.
2) Cheney accused Kerry of voting for taxes 98 times. That's down from the 350 times wrongly claimed by Republicans, but it's still a stretch. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package.
3) The vice president stated flatly that he has never suggested a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11. But he did say in 2003 that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
4) Cheney took Kerry out of context in quoting him as saying that he favored a global test before he would deploy U.S. troops to pre-empt an attack on the United States. Kerry said in his debate that he would not cede to anyone the right to move pre-emptively against a threat but that he would do so in a way that proved to Americans and the world that he had taken the action for a legitimate reason.
Umm..if, as you say, Cheney is his own "fatcheck.org", I'd recommend he update his database.
3 - Mac Diva
The last time you were here, you were claiming Shrub waxed Kerry in the their debate, F.F. It appears you have fumbled the ball again. Agenda setters are calling the vice presidential debate a draw at worst. Many are impressed with Edwards' performance.
Edwards could have done better. Dick Cheney got a half-dozen draft deferments so he would not have to go to Vietnam. Nor did Edwards emphasize just how rich Cheney has become off warmongering via Halliburton. Cheney's opposition to just about every program meant to equalize opportunity, from school lunches to gay unions could have been amplified more, though Edwards provided a limited list. Cheney's hypocrisy in claiming he wants the poor and working-class to have educational and health care opportunities contrasts directly with his voting record. If the man could institute a medieval America, he would. Watching people starve would not bother him at all.
As usual, you are out of touch with reality. Apparently, you learned nothing from getting your clocked cleaned in regard to the presidential debate.
4 - Mac Diva
Thanks, Steve (Boom). I was going to cull some of that material from Natalie's site, but you saved me the trouble.
5 - Hal Pawluk
Last night I thought Cheney had beaten Kerry 47 to 40, but wanted to wait for what would happen over the next few days.
Today told me all I need to know - hours and hours on channel after channel have been spent calling Cheney on his lies.
Edwards won, hands down.
6 - boomcrashbaby
Hmmm.. It seems the CNN poll I quoted earlier was reset. This page has a link of the original CNN result, which I quoted above and also the new result where Cheney has twice as much votes now as before. (So now, a whopping 34% think Cheney won, and a mere 68% think Cheney wasn't quite able to wring out that dish rag). There's also a comment there about Fox news pulling their own poll when their conservative site showed Edwards winning as well.
7 - Bob A. Booey
Commentators and the lay public have a funny way of interpreting candidate debates.
On the points, Edwards waxed the floor with Cheney. He made more points, was more aggressive, and had better arguments than Cheney did. Edwards was better-prepared. Edwards is clearly the best pure debater we've seen since Clinton and perhaps Clinton's superior in oral argument (if not pathos) due to his experience as one of the all-time legends in litigation.
Cheney, however, has always been an underestimated and skilled debater in his own right. He's FAR, FAR better at debates than Bush is -- more controlled, better grasp of the facts and evidence, far more eloquent and fluent. He's also far better at looking dignified and not desperate in attacking his opponent than Bush is capable of. His stooped posture didn't portray the energy and dynamism Edwards's upright posture did -- I suspect that was one reason some of the polls favoring Edwards were so lopsided. Cheney's posture also muffled his microphone at various occasions in the debate, making his voice lower and harder to hear.
Edwards, overall, did a very good job. Anyone who's studied argument or debate (and doesn't view these events as merely joint press conferences) realizes his skill. He could have used several one-liners or gone for the kill in several places, but I think a very important part of his performance was to remain affable and not seem too vicious. He could have spent more time on health care, but his strategic use of time was quite interesting to watch. Edwards really is masterful at addressing his opponent's argument, connecting his criticism to a broader point, and returning back to the specific question, all in his alloted time. He's better than Bush or Kerry at this. Cheney seemed less comfortable with the timed speeches and wasn't able to cover as much ground or address Edwards's many points in turn.
Anyone who closely followed the quantity and substance of the arguments realizes Edwards won, but in casual observation and PR spin, most people will probably see this as a tie.
Not that it matters, really. VP debates rarely matter and this one sure won't affect the outcome of the election.
In strictly formal terms, Edwards beat Cheney by a more decisive margin than Kerry beat Bush. In terms of image and PR, Bush lost by a wider margin -- it's funny how that's become consensus when only a week ago, people were calling it a draw -- due to the generally unsatisfying affect people drew from Bush's facial expressions and hurried, unprepared speech. Bush didn't look like he wanted to be there or that he wanted any piece of Kerry. Kerry clearly lives for debates and you could see his confidence and sporting demeanor toward the event through his polite smiles and head nods. Bush will have to pick it up for Friday's debate since there will be fewer voters watching (Friday night, and the first debate is always the most watched by far) and since a second weak performance will cement doubts raised by the first. The first debate made Kerry look more Presidential, Bush more nervous and unsure of his abilities.
I predict Kerry will win this second debate just as clearly on the points, but Bush will improve his performance -- he'll speak more fluidly, have more points memorized, and try and relate to audience members in the town hall format. While Bush has never really won a debate on points (against Gore, Richards, or now Kerry), he'll come off better in the PR evaluation of debates and probably be declared the "winner" or a tie by the logic of political news, which will help him keep his lead. Kerry needs another win, but a knockout will be harder in a town hall format. I think Kerry might be able to go for that knockout in Debate #3 about domestic policy.
That is all.
8 - Shark
Great 'headline'!
"Edwards Takes a Beating In Debate"
Earth to Flanagan. Earth calling Flanagan.... come in, Davey...?
Cheney' Best Zinger: "...until tonight, I've never met you..."
Cheney's Biggest Blatant *Lie: "...until tonight, I've never met you..."
*there were so many to choose from...
9 - David Flanagan
Here are the viewer stats for the VP candidate debate:
43.6 MILLION WATCH: VIEWERS FOR VP DEBATE... NBC 11.5 MILLION, ABC 10.3, CBS 9.2; FOXNEWS 7.8 MILLION (UP 454 % OVER 2000 VP DEBATE), CNN 3.3 [UP 59% OVER 2000], MSNBC 1.5 MILL [UP 229% FROM 2000]...
Now, while it is true that the VP candidate debate does not carry the same weight, it was still a widely viewed debate. It will have an impact on the polls, especially since many were able to see Cheney as he really is, a senior statesman, not the caricature that Democrats have made him out to be.
David
10 - David Flanagan
The polls are certainly mixed over who won the debate. Online polls, of course are not valid in that anyone can vote and they can vote repeatedly, but the real test will be some of the other polls that will come out in a week. We'll see then, but I'll stand by my assessment on both debates.
As I mentioned in my Bush v Kerry Round 1 assessment, I did say that Kerry won on style, and the polls indicate that, while Bush kept a command of the issues, and the polls support that assessment as well.
Thanks,
David
11 - Michael Croft
I think it was a tie. Each side 'won' to their supporters, and it seems as if Edwards had a slight edge with undecided (although there are mixed signals on this).
Cheney lost the post-debate spin wars by making shit up to score points.
If the overall objective was to stop or continue the momentum from the first debate, then it's probably an Edwards win, although not a huge one.
12 - Shark
Flanagan: "...It will have an impact on the polls, especially since many were able to see Cheney as he really is..."
"...a lying, manipulative, insane, deluded asshole."
Or as Shark said on another thread: "Cheney is Mussolini with a makeover."
Thanks,
Shark
13 - Rodney Welch
I think David writes his reviews of the debate before he actually watches it.
14 - D.I.
I still think Edwards missed a golden opportunity to underscore what a hypocrite Cheney is by not mentioning his six different deferments to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War; in other words, - Cheney will promote and support warfare, as long its someone else doing the dying.
15 - Mac Diva
I will anticipate a David Flanagan review of a debate in which the Republican candidate has a massive coronary.
Welcome to Viewpoint Journal, now available at Free Republic and Blogcritics. As your not at all humble correspondent predicted, George W. Bush trounced his opponent in last night's debate. From his opening sentence, when he gagged and turned purple, it was clear who the better man was. John Kerry, looking French in an Italian suit, tried to apply that German maneuver thing. (The guy really likes foreigners. No wonder he wants them to decide our foreign policy.) The president was having none of it. After all, what does Kerry know about heroism? The really brave fellows joined the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War. Our man pushed Kerry aside and folded himself gracefully to the floor. At that point, the debate did not need to proceed further. By having a heart attack at the beginning of it, Bush, the only real man on the stage (surely you weren't going to count Dan Rather?) won the debate not only hands, but body down. Once again, we see that the Lord moves in mysterious ways to smite liberals and deliver this nation into the hands of our noble leaders, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. VP Dick Cheney, my favorite elder statesman and a man of honor, rushed on stage to do his duty. He too shoved the pretender to the throne, who was trying to kiss the president (liberals claim Kerry was giving mouth to mouth resuscitation, but we know better than to trust them) aside. Perhaps Kerry was currying favor with the gays. He's from Massachusetts, you know. (Snicker.) The debate was over, and we, the right kind of Americans, had won. Cheney, that man of gravitas, said what we were thinking: 'I'm in charge!' The White House is ours, fair (or else) readers. Thank God for heart attacks!
16 - undecided?
So, really, what was up with that edwards comment congratulating cheney on the lezzie daughter? I thought it was neat. Like, "thanks dude for the kind words about my lez daughter." I don't see to much about that exchange. What was I missing?
17 - Hal Pawluk
Did this fix the itals?
18 - RJ
Yes