Debatable
Tonight is the second Presidential debate. The one which nobody is going to watch, because it's scheduled for a Friday night. The one which George Bush is expected to win because it's a format he enjoys, at least if the guest list is limited, and the questions have been vetted ahead of time, and if anyone strays from the approved question, they're cut off. Which is pretty much what the rules dictate. Of course, he was supposed to win last week's debate as well, and we all saw how that turned out.
Tuesday of this week saw the Cheney/Edwards debate. Immediate response to who "won" seemed split, with most choosing Cheney. In general, I found it a tossup, with Cheney having the edge. He seemed more in command of the facts than Bush had been, which is not surprising, considering that he's more directly involved in making and carrying out policy than Bush is. Granted, his "facts" were fairly specious - as, indeed, were many of Edwards' - but he presented them with some conviction. Edwards came off as a bit of a simpering fool, suffering in his reaction shots nearly as much as Bush had, though in a different way. Whereas Bush seemed angry and annoyed, in trying to be gracious Edwards seemed absent, like a student listening to a teacher lecture, all the while thinking, "Get on with it, for god's sake, I gotta meet the gang over at the Brew 'n Chew."
Not that I can blame Edwards. Were I there, I would probably have had a similar expression on my face. The clear loser in this debate was the American people. News reports would have you believe that this debate was a slugfest, with both candidates scoring points off the other and coming back for more. To me, it was exactly what you would expect from a debate between a CEO and a lawyer: a giant snoozefest. Cheney is an articulate, but not particularly lively, speaker. He makes his points in serial, like an exec arguing why his division should upgrade their CRM system. There's not much passion there. I'm not surprised he has a gay daughter; Cheney is as close to being a lesbian as a straight man comes. Edwards, on the other hand, is usually a lot more animated. He must be somewhat aggressive, to have won a number of high payday lawsuits, but that's something we haven't seen much lately. Still, on the stump he's pretty high energy. Sitting behind the debating table, that energy was gone. After a while, he even began to take on Cheney's trademark head loll. At times, I feared both of them would disappear at opposite ends of the split screen. When my phone rang at 9:15, I did something I never do during political speeches: I took the call, grateful for the intrusion.
Part of Edwards' weakness was his role as Kerry point man. He rarely seemed to be speaking for himself, or even for the broader ticket of him and Kerry. In attacking the Administration's policies and failures (redundant?), he was perfectly articulate. But in putting forth the views of his ticket, he constantly spoke of what John Kerry would do. A few "we's" - and even an I now and then - would have gone miles to making him seem more independent. Things got so bad that when moderator Gwen Ifill asked the VP candidates to explain what makes them different without invoking their running mates' name, Edwards couldn't do it. This was just one instance of his pathological inability to answer the question asked, rather than reverting back to canned remarks. When asked how he and Kerry would unite the nation - a perfect opening for reassuring pablum or a scathing attack - he spoke about health care.
Not that Cheney was much better. Both candidates came prepped with stock responses which stuck close to what we've been hearing for months, and neither deviated much. At times it was difficult to remember what the question was. Both candidates resorted to what may charitably be called "untruths," though it is here that Cheney truly won on points. Immediately following the debate, the truth of his never having met Edwards came to light. What has received less play is that, not counting joint sessions for States of the Union and such, Cheney actually presided over the Senate only 3 times in 2003, each time as a result of his vote being needed to break a tie. As far as Tuesdays go, Cheney has presided over the Senate on a Tuesday twice in the past four years. (Ironically, Edwards has presided the same number of Tuesdays in that same period.) Cheney is indeed at the Senate every Tuesday: for the weekly Republican strategy lunches. Needless to say, Edwards is not invited.
Cheney accused Edwards - correctly - of poor attendance during this past campaign season. This is pretty much standard operating procedure during elections. How much time has Bush spent at the White House over the past few months? For the first time in years, Cheney's location is regularly disclosed. He overstepped the truth, however, by claiming Edwards' "hometown newspaper has taken to calling [him] 'Senator Gone.'" Edwards' hometown paper, The News & Observer, was hard pressed to find the remark. That's because it came from The Pilot, which is published three times a week in a town 20 miles away. And which refutes Cheney's remark. In one editorial in the summer of 2003, the paper suggested Edwards should spend more time in Washington and said, "John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone." The writer of the editorial remarked on the paper's website, "I don't think it was at all accurate to say we have 'taken to calling' the senator anything. This was a one-time reference in an editorial that appeared 15 months ago."
As I'm sure everyone knows by now, Cheney's suggestion that viewers check out the truth of Edwards' statements about him at "factcheck.com" sent a number of surfers to GeorgeSoros.com, which leads with the headline, "Why We Must Not Re-Elect President Bush." Contrary to popular belief, that site (factcheck.com) was not snatched up at the last minute, but has been registered since February 4. Nor was the site hacked. The owner chose to redirect traffic. Not that it makes much of a difference. Factcheck.org, the site Cheney was trying to reference, says on its site that Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton." They go on to say that Edwards' facts were substantially correct, only misspeaking by saying Halliburton "paid millions of dollars in fines" while he was CEO. Halliburton did not pay those fines while Cheney was CEO, but instead paid fines for offenses it committed while Cheney was CEO. In fact, Halliburton settled charges with the SEC just this summer for an additional $7.5 million, to cover offenses dating back to Cheney's leadership.
Heads will roll at the Cheney camp. And Cheney is just the kinda guy to roll 'em.
Tuesday of this week saw the Cheney/Edwards debate. Immediate response to who "won" seemed split, with most choosing Cheney. In general, I found it a tossup, with Cheney having the edge. He seemed more in command of the facts than Bush had been, which is not surprising, considering that he's more directly involved in making and carrying out policy than Bush is. Granted, his "facts" were fairly specious - as, indeed, were many of Edwards' - but he presented them with some conviction. Edwards came off as a bit of a simpering fool, suffering in his reaction shots nearly as much as Bush had, though in a different way. Whereas Bush seemed angry and annoyed, in trying to be gracious Edwards seemed absent, like a student listening to a teacher lecture, all the while thinking, "Get on with it, for god's sake, I gotta meet the gang over at the Brew 'n Chew."
Not that I can blame Edwards. Were I there, I would probably have had a similar expression on my face. The clear loser in this debate was the American people. News reports would have you believe that this debate was a slugfest, with both candidates scoring points off the other and coming back for more. To me, it was exactly what you would expect from a debate between a CEO and a lawyer: a giant snoozefest. Cheney is an articulate, but not particularly lively, speaker. He makes his points in serial, like an exec arguing why his division should upgrade their CRM system. There's not much passion there. I'm not surprised he has a gay daughter; Cheney is as close to being a lesbian as a straight man comes. Edwards, on the other hand, is usually a lot more animated. He must be somewhat aggressive, to have won a number of high payday lawsuits, but that's something we haven't seen much lately. Still, on the stump he's pretty high energy. Sitting behind the debating table, that energy was gone. After a while, he even began to take on Cheney's trademark head loll. At times, I feared both of them would disappear at opposite ends of the split screen. When my phone rang at 9:15, I did something I never do during political speeches: I took the call, grateful for the intrusion.
Part of Edwards' weakness was his role as Kerry point man. He rarely seemed to be speaking for himself, or even for the broader ticket of him and Kerry. In attacking the Administration's policies and failures (redundant?), he was perfectly articulate. But in putting forth the views of his ticket, he constantly spoke of what John Kerry would do. A few "we's" - and even an I now and then - would have gone miles to making him seem more independent. Things got so bad that when moderator Gwen Ifill asked the VP candidates to explain what makes them different without invoking their running mates' name, Edwards couldn't do it. This was just one instance of his pathological inability to answer the question asked, rather than reverting back to canned remarks. When asked how he and Kerry would unite the nation - a perfect opening for reassuring pablum or a scathing attack - he spoke about health care.
Not that Cheney was much better. Both candidates came prepped with stock responses which stuck close to what we've been hearing for months, and neither deviated much. At times it was difficult to remember what the question was. Both candidates resorted to what may charitably be called "untruths," though it is here that Cheney truly won on points. Immediately following the debate, the truth of his never having met Edwards came to light. What has received less play is that, not counting joint sessions for States of the Union and such, Cheney actually presided over the Senate only 3 times in 2003, each time as a result of his vote being needed to break a tie. As far as Tuesdays go, Cheney has presided over the Senate on a Tuesday twice in the past four years. (Ironically, Edwards has presided the same number of Tuesdays in that same period.) Cheney is indeed at the Senate every Tuesday: for the weekly Republican strategy lunches. Needless to say, Edwards is not invited.
Cheney accused Edwards - correctly - of poor attendance during this past campaign season. This is pretty much standard operating procedure during elections. How much time has Bush spent at the White House over the past few months? For the first time in years, Cheney's location is regularly disclosed. He overstepped the truth, however, by claiming Edwards' "hometown newspaper has taken to calling [him] 'Senator Gone.'" Edwards' hometown paper, The News & Observer, was hard pressed to find the remark. That's because it came from The Pilot, which is published three times a week in a town 20 miles away. And which refutes Cheney's remark. In one editorial in the summer of 2003, the paper suggested Edwards should spend more time in Washington and said, "John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone." The writer of the editorial remarked on the paper's website, "I don't think it was at all accurate to say we have 'taken to calling' the senator anything. This was a one-time reference in an editorial that appeared 15 months ago."
As I'm sure everyone knows by now, Cheney's suggestion that viewers check out the truth of Edwards' statements about him at "factcheck.com" sent a number of surfers to GeorgeSoros.com, which leads with the headline, "Why We Must Not Re-Elect President Bush." Contrary to popular belief, that site (factcheck.com) was not snatched up at the last minute, but has been registered since February 4. Nor was the site hacked. The owner chose to redirect traffic. Not that it makes much of a difference. Factcheck.org, the site Cheney was trying to reference, says on its site that Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton." They go on to say that Edwards' facts were substantially correct, only misspeaking by saying Halliburton "paid millions of dollars in fines" while he was CEO. Halliburton did not pay those fines while Cheney was CEO, but instead paid fines for offenses it committed while Cheney was CEO. In fact, Halliburton settled charges with the SEC just this summer for an additional $7.5 million, to cover offenses dating back to Cheney's leadership.
Heads will roll at the Cheney camp. And Cheney is just the kinda guy to roll 'em.
posted by John Bliss at
1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home