Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Veep debate!!

Well, I didn't watch the whole thing for two reasons:

1) the VP debate doesn't matter. Hell, the men themselves hardly matter on the best days. Its only on the worst days that they even have a reason for existing.

2) Tuesday night is the customary night for my Bible study group to meet. By the time I got home, it was already ten o'clock. I did take some notes starting from that point onward, which I will provide for your edification.

In reality, I was looking forward to this debate (even though it is essentially meaningless). Why? Because these guys are aware of their meaninglessness and can therefore show personality, emotion, and humanity in ways that the front-running robots are never allowed to do. So there.

On to the notes; see the post's title link for another view of the debate's outcome. I find it rather partisan. But then I don't think the veep debate really changes much.

10:00 Turn it on just as Edwards (or as I like to call him, Smilin' John) is finishing up a statement on the amendment to ban gay marriage. Darn! I would have liked to listen to that. Did hear Edwards state that the amendment is meaningless, won't change a single thing about states' recognizing (or not recognizing) marriages in other states, and that the amendment only serves as a political tool to divide the nation. Sounds about right.
Cheney does not comment on the amendment, but only thanks Edwards for his kind words about his (homosexual) daughter. I wonder what Smilin' J. had to say?

10:05 A back and forth between the two men on torte reform. SNORE!! But even I can see in my limited viewing of the debate that Cheney's strategy is to hit on Kerry's Senate record every chance he gets.

10:10 Moderator Gwen brings up AIDS, and specifically AIDS as it relates to domestic problems. Cheney artfully avoids that and deals with the much more horrific (and therefore easier to say that it's too big to solve?) pandemic in the world. Edwards doesn't do much better on AIDS as a domestic issue but does use it to highlight the suffering healthcare coverage under W's reign.

10:14 The question is on Edwards' lack of governing experience--the least amount in a very, very long time (since oh maybe Hannibal Hamlin? I'm just guessing here?). Edwards' response? "I'll tell the truth." and that "A long political resume doesn't equal good judgment. Decent answers, especially when he says that "I'm not hiding that I don't have experience when compared to the vice president." (Smilin' and Truthful too? sigh, he IS dreamy!)

10:21 Weird question structure by moderator doesn't allow either man to refer to their running mate. Edwards spectacularly fails to do that about three times. Is this some way of trying to expose that Edwards is halfway priming to run for the nomination in 2008?

10:28 When both men were asked what could be done to lessen the red v. blue problem or the inability of Congressional parties to reach across the aisle, Cheney at one point tried to use ZELL MILLER as an example of the GOP attempting to be bipartisan? Wow, Dick, if they would allow us to duel in today's society . . . come ON! He's your bipartisan example?

10:32 As I said, I missed two-thirds of the debate, but how many times, did Edwards mention Kerry's name tonight seriously? (This would have tragic consequences later, as I will point out.)
And Dick didn't thank Edwards in the start of his closing remarks! He IS a mean guy!

Media evaluation
As is my custom, I watched ABC break it down. Here is where the tragedy occurred. Either Peter Jennings is getting old and washed up or he is going nuts because he consistently called Edwards "Kerry." Will this have screwed-up ballot implications on Election Day?
ABC seemed to call the debate a draw, but took great pains, as I mentioned at the outset, that this debate really means squat anyway.
The other weird thread in the post-debate discussion on ABC was Jennings constantly stating that they don't employ spin in their evaluations. And he also heavily emphasized that the instant poll they took after the debate was scientific. Is all of this a fallout from the CBS national guard fiasco? Or is this a belated attempt to repair image front the 2000 too-close-to-call mess? I don't know, but it was odd.
Anyway, short, sweet. Over the weekend, I'll probably provide impressions on the town hall debate coming up this Friday night.
See ya then, but keep tuning in every day for other non-political stuff.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

for those of you spending this campaign in a cave, here's a fun factoid re the debate:
when Cheney referenced factcheck.com, someone somewhere LEAPT off of his/her couch and swung into action.
see, factcheck.org is the highly reputed, non-partisan website that attempts to factcheck both candidates. (it's good, seriously, check it out.)
WHEREAS factcheck.COM clearly was/is maintained by someone NOT friendly to Cheney's agenda. that person quickly linked their website to the site of George Soros. Soros is the influential liberal, pro-democracy, super-rich philanthropist that has devoted himself to defeating G.Bush this November.

the link is still active.


==Jack Thunder