Click
here for info on the Print Journal
(and to purchase your copy)!
10.6.04
Just 27 Days Left: The Veep Debate
By Mark Grueter, with special guest Sarah Stodola
-------------------------------------
Me Three editors Mark Grueter and Sarah Stodola sat down last night to discuss the vice presidential debate. This exchange occurred before either of them watched or read any post-debate analysis...
Sarah Stodola : So who do you think won?
Mark Grueter : Cheney, by a bit, especially as a contrast to his boss. He was articulate and thorough and at least gave the appearance of knowing much more about foreign policy than Edwards. Now, is he correct about Iraq? That's a different question.
S: I agree that Cheney came across as the more polished of the two. And especially with the bar set so low by Bush, he looked particularly articulate. However, I think we need to apply some serious fact-checking to Cheney's statements. Of course Cheney isn't right about Iraq. I think that a couple of days from now they'll be saying that this debate was a draw -- unless the media capitalize on some of the possible inaccuracies in Cheney's statements. Then Edwards would come out on top.
M: Well, Cheney was right to point out the fact that brave Iraqis too are dying in the fight against terrorist elements within their country. Edwards was unable to contradict Cheney's assertion that America has suffered 50% of the casualties, as opposed to the 90% claimed by Kerry/Edwards. Or, if Edwards was able to contradict the statement, he didn't bother trying to. It's hard to say how this will impact the election - not much is the easiest answer, for many reasons. It does remind people that Bush has intelligent people working directly beneath him.
S: Cheney said "I have not suggested" a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. This is blatantly untrue and should have much more of an effect on the election than any argument over which interpretation of casualty statistics in Iraq is the right one. Whatever the specific casualty numbers, it's obvious that things are going badly there, and it's also obvious that Cheney misrepresented facts in order to get us there, and that he is now denying he did so.
M: I don't think it's so obvious Cheney "misrepresented facts" leading up to the war in Iraq. While I agree that things aren't as rosy in Iraq as he makes it sound, it's also not "obvious" that we've lost or that nothing good will ever come of the intervention in the first place. I also liked how Cheney was able to establish an identity for himself aside from his being in a partnership with Bush. For instance, he made clear his dissenting opinion from the president on the subject of gay marriage. Whereas Edwards, even when directly instructed to answer the question without prefacing each sentence with "John Kerry and I" wasn't able to answer without using Kerry's name twice. Cheney also made a nice gesture, after being asked to compare himself to Edwards, by noting their similar upbringings of dealing with hard times. Edwards, in turn, didn't bother answering the question at all.
S:
Edwards did make the gesture of complimenting Cheney on how he's dealt
with having a gay daughter. But going back to the beginning of your
last statement, I think that if the outcome of this debate is bad for
Cheney, it will most likely be because of the fact that at one point in
time he stated with certainty that there were connections between Iraq
and 9/11, and tonight he said that he never did such a thing.
I think that Edwards did particularly well in responding to the
question about Kerry's "global test" statement - that is a criticism
that will be laid to rest after tonight...
M: That kind of a discussion, one of semantics over what Cheney did or did not say, probably won't interest the average voter. Cheney can still weasel his way out of that particular issue anyway, because he never actually said, "Saddam was behind 9/11" or even "There's a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11". What he did do was say that by invading Iraq we were attacking a "geographic region" that fosters and supports terrorist elements, including elements behind 9/11. What frustrates me about Edwards is how he refuses to answer specific charges. If he already explained why he voted for the war, then against the $87 billion to support the troops, I'd like to hear the reason again. He can't explain that seemingly inconsistent position too many times as far as I'm concerned. Simply saying you've been consistent and actually being consistent is not the same thing. I know the Kerry/Edwards strategy was to stay on message and not get "sucked into" answering detailed charges, but I'm not sure how or why that is supposed to work. It couldn't hurt to specifically refute certain charges.
S:
Both sides avoided answering "detailed charges." Just
look at how Cheney didn't even acknowledge the Halliburton issue after
Edwards brought up some specific charges.
But again, I think that over the next couple days the media needs
to dissect the facts cited by each candidate, because it certainly seemed
like they were dealing with two sets of statistics. Whoever is proven
to have stuck mostly closely to the actual facts will have an eventual
edge.
M:
I'm not confident Americans care as much about "facts" as you
are. On Halliburton, Cheney said, probably unwisely, look, I don't have
the time to explain to you why I've done nothing wrong, but if you go
to this independent group, they'll provide you with all the specifics.
At least he said something. When Cheney accused Edwards of missing
an astonishing 70% of his intelligence meetings, or whatever it was, because
he was too busy campaigning, Edwards said absolutely nothing in response.
And when Cheney said that Kerry was on the "wrong side" on defense
issues his whole career, Edwards put up no defense at all. Cheney said
Edwards turned against the war because of political pressure, because
of Howard Dean's surge in the polls, and Edwards responded with nothing.
I mean, anyone with a pulse should have answered those charges.
Finally, I still think these things need to do a better job
living up to their reputations as "debates." More open exchanges
between the candidates and less prepared speeches would've been nice.
S:
Well, if it's not about "facts," then who cares if the candidates
bother with answering "detailed charges" or not?
Anyway, I think that if the media catches on to the inaccuracies in Cheney's
statements, the fallback will trickle down to the general voting population.
The closing statements were a joke. But overall, I think
that both candidates came across as fairly confident and articulate, and
neither delivered a serious blow to the other. Overall, the more
important question is whether or not this debate will effect the outcome
of the election, and I predict that it won't have much of an impact.
---------------------------------------
© 2004 Me Three