Runester

Was there a clear winner? I don’t think so. I liked the presentation of both, and no one made any mistakes or blunders (as far as I could tell). They are both master debaters! (snicker, snicker …)

I really think that based on content, people are going to choose the person they ALREADY agreed with. So, Rep’s think that Cheney won and Dem’s think that Edwards won. I really don’t think many minds are going to be changed. Unlike the first debate, neither’s performance was a blunder.

What do I think? (just in case anyone cares). I think that Cheney was more succinct, used real numbers, pointed to specific accomplishments and specific plans. [I also think he made half a dozen snarky remarks to/at Edwards, a little sarcastic and a little funny!] I think that Edwards harped too much on health care without explaining what their plan really is and while using some very convoluted logic concerning allies / success / Iraq.

Halliburton came up, several times. All charges connecting Cheney with Halliburton misdeeds are insinuations. Why insinuations? Because they have been investigated multiple times, and by those who would benefit by exposing any connections … and they have found no wrong doing on Cheney’s part. Funny, these investigations are not mentioned by the Dem’s who seem to say “Halliburton” and then wink as if, “you know what I mean.” Well, guess what - I do know what they mean. They mean, insinuation and mud slinging, regardless of facts or fairness, is a better tactic then facing the public with their own record.

I just heard quite a LIE on FoxNews on the part of the Dem analysis of the debate. Cheney said that Saddam was NOT connected to 9/11 but WAS connected to Al Qaeda. That is not conjecture, that is proven and has been included in multiple reports. So, the lie … is that stating that there was an Iraq / Al Qaeda connection implies an Iraq / 9/11 connection. NO, IT DOES NOT! The implication is that Saddam had ties to multiple terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, and that he had & used WMD’s (and may still have had them at the start of the war … at least according to the worlds intelligence agencies, and agreed to by both Kerry & Edward); so the threat posed by a state with WMD’s and terrorist ties was and is very real.

The WMD’s weren’t there. That’s not an embarrassment, that’s a relief. We are safer today, because they weren’t there … we needed to act, and after acting properly discovered that the threat was not as grave as suspected does not negate the decision.

Here’s an analogy. Picture a policeman coming upon a murder. He sees a victim, shot to death. He sees a suspect standing over the victim, and holding something like a gun in his hand. The policeman asks the suspect to disarm, the suspect refuses. The policeman draws his gun and demands the suspect disarm and show his hands; the suspect again refuses. The policeman, looking at the evidence available and confronted with what he believes is an armed and dangerous and belligerent assailant … he fires and injures him. Now, does the existence, or lack their of, of a gun on the suspect retroactively change the policeman’s decision? Is it reasonable to stand in agreement with the policeman’s decision up until the weapon is discovered to be an unloaded gun instead of a loaded one?

This is a fair analogy. Saddam had WMD’s and used them on the Kurds and on Iran. He refused to allow UN inspectors to verify they had been destroyed; repeatedly refusing all efforts to confirm their status and violated every UN sanction for twelve years. That puts him in the role of potentially armed and belligerent suspect. Further, now that the regime has been toppled and no WMD’s have been found, we can say that the apparatus and means of producing more DID exist. That sounds a lot like an unloaded gun to me. So, Kerry & Edwards agreed with the decision until it was made and no WMD’s were found? So, the result retroactively negates the decision? I don’t accept that, and I don’t respect people who do.

Personally, I’d rather have Cheney for president then Bush. VP will have to do.

The moderator asked about the deep splits in every area of American life. Cheney only addressed the inter-partisan fighting and Edwards just blamed Bush / Cheney for everything and then starting talking about health care again.

Closing Statements

Edwards seem to be riding the “everything is getting worse” train. Clever! That is the consistent belief of most people, regardless of objective evidence to the contrary. It makes sense, though, since the election is about believing or disbelieving the current administrations work. So, Cheney sings the “everything is getting better” song, but that is a hard sell. People, consistantly and stuburnly, believe that the world is getting worse and that history (even just a decade or two, ago) was somehow better.

I guess, in the end, November 2nd is about who people believe. Or, at least … believe more.

Cheney has to stop holding his hands under his chin. It blocks the microphone and muffles his voice. I know that he has no way to know that, but it’s distracting. Edwards needs to stop making noises with his pad of paper. That’s unprofessional and DELIBERATELY distracting.

Ha Ha! Edwards broke the “don’t use his name” rule, once … twice …

She asked about the “flip-flopping” charge. She asked, “What’s wrong with a little flip-flopping now and then?” Does this imply a tacit pro-Dem bias?

Edwards declared that his team has always been consistant (I strongly disagree) and that Bush / Cheney has flipped many times. He was specific enough, to plant some doubt in my mind. Cheney now re-iterates the exact charges that we’ve heard (over, and over) from the GOP.

The moderator has asked about AIDS, here in the US. Cheney just spent most of his time talking about international efforts. Now he is trying to answer the local issue. Bush / Cheney promised $15B in international AIDS aid. Kerry / Edwards wants to double that?!

Edwards just turned this subject around, and talked about health care and insurance, again. Interesting.

Edwards is claiming that his limited experience in government is not a deficit, but his convictions and honesty compensate. He just said, “we know that a long resume does not equal good judgement.” True.

Cheney just made two jibes about Edwards. He isn’t worried about what some district in Iowa is going to vote after his term. And, he knows that stepping into the presidents shoes in case of a tragedy is a serious and sobering thought. This implies that Edwards has further political asperations, and that having Edwards one stuck fishbone in the throat away from the big seat is a little scary.

Edwards just said that trial lawyers plays a very little role in rising health care costs and exhorbitant medical practice insurance. Edwards stated that he has a solid plan to reduce health care costs and to make sure that millions more are insured. He did not explain what that plan is, though. To be fair, maybe it is too complicated and cannot be reported within 90 seconds. Still, I’d like to know what their plan is.

OK, now they are just lambasting each other, personally, on who paid what, when, in personal taxes. So, Edwards had a Sub Chapter-S Corp, and Cheney was well paid by Halliburton. Big deal. Neither one of those situations applies to average joe american.

Edwards is criticizing the dividend tax cut (to 0%), by characterising it as a tool for super wealthy. Yet, dividends are used by hundreds of thousands of retiree’s for retirement income. So, any effort to penalize the “super wealthy” would also increase the tax burden on retirees. Not, such a good policy.

Edwards is dancing around the gay marriage debate. He states that he believes that marriage is for one man and one woman, but that gay couples should get legal benefits (my feelings, as well). But, that states have no legal obligation to recognize the marriages officiated in other states. This sort of sounds like he is advocating state-by-state constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage. I’m not sure that is what he actually wants, but it is what he is implying.

Cheney is criticizing the trial lawyers and their effect on health insurance and medical liability insurance. He was careful not to directly attack Edwards, but he advocated Torte Reform. Edwards needs to answer carefully, because their position is against Torte Reform - but the issue is popular among anyone who has to pay exorbitant insurance fees.

Edwards just did this snarky trick, tying to imply Cheney did not answer the “jobs & poverty” question, except that he did! Further, Cheney pointed to 9/11 as the cause of the one million lost jobs - Edwards squarely blames the Bush / Cheney administration. I am not really sure that’s fair.

Cheney is using real numbers to describe jobs created, those who benefited from Income Tax reduction, and No Child Left Behind. Edwards uses easier to understand, but ’soft’ terms, like “have created less jobs then any other administration” … but no numbers and no acknowledgement of 9/11 or the Enron / Tyco debacle.

Cheney just mentioned the 98 times Kerry voted for tax raises. Further, he just pointed out that by increasing taxes on those making more then $200K would harm many thousands of small businesses.

Cheney just slammed Edwards for his deplorable attendance record (in the Senate) and Edwards got mad. He maintained his composure, but he hid his smirk behind his coffee cup. Now, Edwards is turning the table by pointing out Cheney’s voting record.

Cheney has just tossed a URL, factcheck.org, which allegedly debunks the Halliburton charges.

Edwards has to be carefull when talking about Israel, the American-ewish vote is important and trying to lambast Israel is not going to play very well.

Halliburton has been mentioned twice, but without any specific charges. I have seen this technique used before, there is a silent insinuation. The details were described by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, have been completely debunked since then, and have been subsequently mentioned again and again by the Dem’s. If there is something there, Cheney should be tried and charged, if not - then these insinuations should be stopped.