Aces Full of Links

Veep Debate: My Take

The only Vice Presidential Debate came and went without leaving either candidate wounded. My conclusion, therefore, is that neither candidate came out as a clear winner. But they both were able to accomplish something. [Update I’ve elaborated my post with a few links to supporting news stories.]

No Clear Winner

In a debate that was supposed to be all over the map, the candidates started right out with the Iraq question, and it is clear that the Democratic strategy is partly to stick to Iraq. It makes sense, since it is a huge issue and the people feel now that Bush has made mistakes there. Also, it is an issue which can be used to question the credibility of the administration. Any time people’s perceptions are out of line with what the administration is saying, that is an opportunity for the challenger.

Cheney seemed bent on keeping Edwards off-message with constant direct attacks, mostly at the beginning of his droned-on responses. I go the impression that he wanted me to change the channel, that he felt Bush/Cheney had little to gain from this debate, so it would be better if no one watched it.

Edwards got off some attacks of his own, but he also acted as a decent booster for Kerry several times, even mentioning Kerry’s name when told specifically not to do it in one question.

In the wake of this debate I was left wondering what impact it would have? How many people tuned in and stayed tuned in? How would people respond to the attacks they saw, and the responses?

Factcheck.com/org

Really, I think it would be difficult for the undecided voter to score this without extensive fact checking. And there’s one humorous note there. Factcheck.org is a website that usually hosts a review of the facts that come out of the candidate’s mouths. Last night the Vice President mentioned “FactCheck.com” which, as Mike pointed out to me at the time, was an unregistered domain pointing to a placeholder page. However, someone was thinking quick. The URL now redirects to GeorgeSoros.com! So, people looking into the Veep’s url are directed to an anti-Bush message.

Meanwhile, Factcheck.org is down, overrun by requests. If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might think that this was Cheney’s plan all along, to take out Factcheck.org so that his distortions would not be catalogued there (see the Boston.com fact review below). But such a theory is really beyond the pale, especially considering he got the URL wrong.

Attacks Barely Stick

Nobody in this debate was able to make a serious hit that stuck. Cheney did have the accusation that Edwards has never been in the Senate in the last 4 years. (Cheney claimed he visited the Senate “most Tuesdays”) I’m trying to imagine someone refuting my attendance in college by saying that they had visited the campus center on most Tuesdays and yet never met me. It’s ridiculous, but some naive people may fall for that zinger, especially because he dragged a newspaper into the mix. (His assertion contained a lie, see links below)

Edwards made his attempt to tie Cheney closer to Halliburton and the no bid contracts. I don’t know how people regard Halliburton, so I don’t see whether this will make an impact.

In another Cheney attack, he actually tried to slam Edwards on tax dodging. To which Edwards came right back with more about Halliburton. Cheney kept Edwards extremely busy during the debate, and in many ways I think it reflected well on Edwards.He was able to go toe to toe with a veteran and hold his own. Despite Edwards’ long experience speaking, this was his first one-on-one political debate, if I understand correctly and he looked like a pro.

Credibility

Of course, the credibility issue did come up with respect to both Iraq and the economy. Edwards appealed to people to trust their eyes, not the administration’s rhetoric.

Now, I know that the vice president and the president don’t see it, but you do.

It’s a potentially strong message, because credibility has many implications in this election, With the fear that is in the air both from terrorism and economic issues, people are craving credible leadership. I think it helps Kerry/Edwards to have had this issue raised here, but I don’t think it was driven home. At best they can hope to make the same case even stronger in a future debate.

Nothing To Be Ashamed Of

Cheney did nothing to wound Edwards, and therefore gave no reason for Kerry not to refer back to Edwards’ performance in this debate. I predict you’ll hear Kerry saying things like “You heard my partner, John Edwards say…” So he definitely gains something from Edwards’ strong showing.

Little Immediate Effect

In the balance, I can’t really say this debate itself will have much of an effect on the election. I think it will neither enhance or slow down the momentum Kerry gained from the first debate, though it could be used by both sides to pull out specific quotes for throwing words back at opponents in a future debate. I’ll leave the specific policy analysis to others. If either side can make something of the debate in the coming days, they may yet be able to leverage it to their advantage.

Chuck has posted his response to the debate on Unbecoming Levity, along with our running commentary. He’s formatted it prettier than I did on my previous post, and interspersed it with snippets from the debate transcript.

Other links:

• All ‘04 Debate Transcripts, from the AP
• Cheney bald faced lied about never meeting Edwards before (ABC news)
• Fact-Checking the Debate (Boston Globe)
  • “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.” - Cheney October 5, 2004
  • According to the Globe, Cheney has consistently linked Al Qaeda and Saddam. Of course, Al Qaeda perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
  • “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” - Cheney, Jan 2004
  • Cheney’s name shows up a lot more often in this review.
• Bremer says troop levels too low in Iraq (SFGate)
  • “In remarks published Tuesday, Bremer told an insurance conference at a West Virginia resort, “We never had enough troops on the ground” from the outset to stop what he described as “horrid” looting and the ensuing instability.”

Posted by James at October 6, 2004 7:50 AM
Social Bookmark del.icio.us Digg it reddit