The VP Debate,
from my rather wet and muddy vantage point (it’s been raining cats and dogs here in NM). I keep trying to call it a draw, and keep arguing myself back and forth. A muddy subject, for sure. I don’t believe anyone expected John Edwards to do so well, yet there was that persistent campaign shpiel slickness that I dislike. I didn’t expect Dick Cheney to be so poorly spoken; I had forgotten how often we see these Administration individuals in pre-scripted events, announcing major policy initiatives at preach-to-the-choir right-wing thinktanks. I fear a bit of bias in my view, because I prefer the more down-to-earth, soft-spoken style that Mr Cheney adopted for this debate ... because it is the tactic I would use.
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Mr Edwards was very aggressive, didn’t shrink from tough questions ... but still softballed some stiff statistical/policy-wonk items that I feel he should have had at his fingertips. Or maybe he weighted Bush-like consistent pounding of the campaign shpiel more. A little waxy, a little Ken-doll. That flick-the-switch neon smile. I was pleasantly surprised at the budding gravitas. He answered most of the personal attacks hard. Difficult to oppose an individual with such a long career in politics as Mr Cheney, yet he did remarkably — which is why I am arguing with myself that a ‘draw’ here is likely a win for Mr Edwards. All he had to do was hold is own. Mr Edwards did extremely well at clearing blown smoke from his running mate’s media/public record [as interpreted by Mr Cheney], best ‘salesman’, and going further in presenting Mr Kerry as a solid choice, as well as solidifying these seemingly diaphanous “plans” that Democrats keep rhetorically throwing around [there’s something horribly Reaganesque in the “we have a plan ...” that continues to raise my hackles — every time I hear it, I hear Mr Reagan saying it]. I believe I got more content here than from Mr Kerry in the first Presidential Debate; he was too busy poking the monkey in the cage with a stick to give us discursive information.
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.
I was expecting soft-spoken smartly-slanted statistics and swift, cutting, smart rejoinders from Mr Cheney. I wasn’t disappointed, except in wit and delivery. Ridicule without wit is just plain ugly; he made this mistake a few times, for me. His hands seemed to be shaking, towards the end. He kept muffling his microphone, mostly monotone. Any policy initiatives came out in a droned rush, recited without any emotion or enthusiasm. Hard to grasp, in that format. He came across as ‘white urban rich’, jaded. Instead of direct refutations, he used what I call the “Contract with America tactic” of focusing on smaller details that throw the subject into doubt for the non-policy-wonk. “You’re wrong on your statistics. The percentage is wrong ...” even though the right one isn’t good, either. Old tactic, doesn’t work as well these days. I expected him to have more spontaneous wit. And yet, there were times when he portrayed the ‘elder statesman’ well. I’m surprised to find, even though I thought Mr Bush’s debate performance horrifically mangled, he expressed some foreign policy goals better than Mr Cheney did tonight. These two are not the idealogical powerhouse in an unchoreographed environment, clearly. I find Mr Cheney didn’t booster the President very hard, in comparison with Mr Edwards’ boosting of Mr Kerry. But I think Mr Cheney brought a little blood with Mr Edwards attendance record, playing “disciplinarian of the Senate.” I couldn’t help laughing, imagining the spanking Mr Edwards might receive. Using the old “board of Education”? So I’d rate Mr Cheney best with the personal attack and Taoist redirection of force.
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question ...
Both just went crackers over the AIDS question, getting the moderator a bit miffed when she ended that particular segment. I found myself miffed, also; AIDS in America is no minor issue. I gave mental points to Mr Edwards for bringing up minority issues again, later on.
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.”
I admired Mr Cheney for not using every second of time. Sometimes there really isn’t anything more to say. Mr Edwards, when asked if he felt personally attacked when the President mentions “they put a trial lawyer on the other ticket” ... I would have simply said, “Well, you just answered your own question” and left it at that. Poor question; dull rejoinder.
No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Mr Cheney didn’t thank his opponent in the closer. Just the moderator, and the venue. Sour grapes over the mention of his lesbian daughter? Mr Edwards rang quite insincere, at that point. A real sour note that he just barely managed to mollify.
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
I think both helped their respective tickets. Mr Cheney helped regain some semblance of authority for the Administration, and Mr Edwards put even more polish on the Kerry-Edwards apple.
Almost, at times, the Fool.
Mr Edwards managed to be critical, yet optimistic. Mr Cheney retained the doom-and-gloom of the ‘wartime administration’ charade. Optimist usually does the best.
I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Hard to call for me, as you can tell. A draw. Yes, I’ll call it a draw. Scooter the Muppet vs. Jabba the Hut ... no clear winner. Which means a gain in respect for Mr Edwards, boosting the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Hooray for my side. Let’s move on. Looking forward to Friday.
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
Apologies to TS Eliot.
NY Times:
Mr Allawi, sans rose—garden-colored glasses.
ArtNewsOnline:
A fake in the White House? Got your attention, didn’t I?
The Australian:
Blast from the past; a quote from Dick Cheney in 1992:
“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait [in 1991], but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq ...”
CSM
weighs what I’ll call the ‘entertainment quotient’ of the upcoming VP debate.
BBC:
Mr Karzai leaves the ‘safety’ of Kabul to campaign. An odd concept. The candidate can’t travel the country freely, yet is favored to win.
CJR Campaign Desk:
Reporters flunk a [global] test. I predicted this, if you recall, immediately post-debate.
Reuters:
Iran Says Its Missiles Can Now Reach 1,250 Miles. Whereas the other Shahab missiles seem to be North Korean tech, the Shahab 4 seems to be built mostly on older Soviet engineering. The longer we fiddle with North Korea ...
NY Times Editorial:
The Nuclear Bomb that Wasn’t. “Ms. Rice’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or “to referee disputes in the intelligence community.” But even with that curious job disclaimer, it’s no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn’t have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly.” So, Ms. Rice copies her boss’ style ... she’s ‘not a fact-checker’ either. So who in blazes *does* check facts in this Administration? Inquiring minds want to know.
NY Times:
Yesterday, Rumsfeld discounts Hussein/Al Qaeda links. Today, Paul Bremer admits we were short on troops. Incrementalism ... dripping out the ‘bad news’ to minimize impact on the Administration. The focus is [wonder of wonders] again being changed to ‘intent and capability.’ It’s like dropping from a murder charge to stalking, and expecting the court and jury to forget the deadly force used [and causualties incurred] to conquer the guilty.
Reuters:
Rumsfeld: No ‘Hard Evidence’ of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link. The backpedal may engage a public coaster brake.
NY Times Op-Ed:
Mr Safire, this member of the “Democratic Whoopee Brigade” finds that pre-emptive nuclear conflict *was* part of the great doctrine. You say:
“Hold on; nuclear pre-emption was never America’s ‘great doctrine’ during confrontation with the Soviets. Our strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first “massive retaliation,” later “mutual assured destruction.’’ Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.”
The US Budget for Fiscal Year 1983: “US Defense policies ensure our preparedness to respond to and, if necessary, successfully fight either conventional or nuclear war.”
Look at history. Of course pre-emption was part of the ‘doctrine.’ The Soviets were considering it. To not have contemplated it, strategized responses to it, would be to remove a vitally important part of our overall nuclear defense stratey. “Winnable nuclear war” was discussed back when Pipes was advisor to the NSC.
If “hawkishness” is the impetus to militarily make the towns challenged by insurgency safe, then give me more hawkishness. It will get us out sooner, and Iraq more stable ... better than the Bush ‘sitzkrieg’, waiting for the next RPG to burn another unarmored aluminum-skinned HumVee. When the towns are cleared, the military presence can recede, reducing strife ... and the police presence (more appropriate for the purpose) can move in, hopefully staffed by Iraqis. Dove/Democrats, most of them, understand this ... no matter the spin.
NY Times:
A surge in voter registrations. Historically, an increase in voters helps Democratic causes.
NY Times:
A quiet Republican voice against the Administration. A moderate Republican. We see those only in museums these days.
CNN Money:
“Do Not Call” list wins in Supreme Court. Free speech, my exhaust pipe. Since when does free speech tie up your phone lines, cost you time, money and frustration?
“Global test.”
“But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
— First Debate Transcript.
The question was over the ‘new’ doctrine of pre-emption. Mr Kerry’s “global test” seems to consist of American governmental support, American citizen support, and understanding (not necessarily approval or support) from the UN, allies, and other nations. If I nitpick down to semantics and assumptions based on common sense.
Mr Kerry should express this forcefully once in a campaign rally, then move on to attack other opposition positions, leaving John Edwards to fill it out when necessary.
Later: Check the McLaughlin Group transcript over the debate. I don’t know whether to be elated or chastened by this:
MR. BUCHANAN: “Kerry has to win.”
Bush takes a beating from everyone other than the token flack.
NY Times:
The option nobody’s pushing. Yet. The question on youth’s mind ... draft?
SF New Mexican:
Poll: S.F. students support Kerry by landslide.
NY Times Editorial:
Confronting Tom DeLay. Mentioned in previous posts, defenders of the President say, “He’s not a fact-checker” ... in this article, Delay says “All I did was help raise money.” The buck doesn’t stop anywhere.
Later: Washington Post extrapolates a bit more.
NY Times Editorial:
Fixing social security. A good read. I agree ... neither candidate is dealing honestly and forthrightly over the issue. Ages should raise with life expectancy, and there should be progressivity inserted. The Democrats have screamed “the sky is falling”, while the Republicans have quietly plotted to privatize the whole shebang. Don’t throw out the old jalopy and buy a new car ... put a modern engine in the old beast, steer small and we’ll get there. In envied style.
NY Times:
Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq. To me, very late to field this, interesting as it is. We discussed and debunked the tubes on the leftward side of the aisle in the weblog world after it was made public, a loooong time ago. Here’s an interesting timeline. The tubes were just one leg of a many-legged ‘reasons for war’ octopus. I look back in my archives, and see my head was spinning at the time [scroll down to ‘ny times analysis, bush doctrine for war’].
Well,
today I’ve run across more articles using subsets of that item I found in National Review yesterday. The accepted interpretation seems to be, Kerry won on style, but Bush won on the idealogical substance he was unable to coherently articulate ... and that he was off his game. They then go to great lengths to fill in Mr Bush’s blanks for him. Pure Reagan-era, for those who remember. Reagan would field some wing-nut claim, and the aides, press secretary and chief of staff would ‘interpret’ the idealogy for the media the next day.
National Review:
None of the media’s been matter-of-fact about the debate; Mr Bush was dreadful. After digging, the only refreshingly honest analysis I find is in a conservative organ. I admire this author for his candor, from across the idealogical divide. I will be gracious and say Mr Bush hit some good points, but they were so poorly expressed, that they were lost on anyone but party faithful and news wonks like ourselves.
He was disappointed in Mr Bush for not being in command of his dossier, not being sharp in debate. I don’t think Mr Bush is the particular individual to fulfill this expectation. Mr Bush campaigned in 2000 on a mind-numbingly static subset of mundane campaign points and tiresomely repeated them over and over. In speeches, in debates. I don’t believe he ever displayed the ability to think on his feet; it’s taken him four years to learn to use a teleprompter in more than three and four word halting phrases (fluency using prompters was something I used to teach in a couple of weeks to novices).
Mr Bush has got to be on top of everything now, master of policy, resolute war leader ... or he falls short of the expectations his own party has built up around him. Playing “hick at a hoe-down” ... grimacing with emotion, slouching on the podium, retreating to twanged colloquialisms when his mind is blank ... works against the ‘war leader’ perception. Being a ‘yuck-yuck’ average Joe doesn’t make anyone feel safer. There’s a fundamental disconnect between the two, and I believe it could be this perception that will cost him the election.
That being said, the media is performing predictably. Everyone’s sitting on the sidelines, flashing shifty glances at each other, waiting for someone to make the first move to place a meaning on the debate. How many paraphrases of “apparently Kerry might possibly be considered the winner, but only because of ...” can you stand?
Given this poor performance’, I believe the opposition will put a disproportional amount of weight on the Cheney/Edwards debate and the second ‘town hall’ Presidential debate. It will be difficult for Mr Edwards to counter the experience and professionalism of Mr Cheney ... and Mr Bush does better in an informal environment.
The Economist:
Napoleon said, “Let China sleep ...” — China’s waking up. But read this, in particular: “Historically low interest rates have fuelled housing bubbles in America and many other countries around the globe. At some stage prices will fall, obliging consumers to save much more and spend less. The unwinding of America’s vast economic imbalances could depress growth there for many years, whereas China’s slowdown looks likely to be fairly brief.” Economists are such joyful people ... the more I read them, the more I want to build a self-sustaining bunker in some agrarian environment.
The Economist:
Kyoto a-go-go. “The Russian president must also hope the decision will restore his tarnished image in the world. Recent crackdowns on independent provincial governors and inconvenient journalists have attracted harsh criticism from abroad. By approving Kyoto, Mr Putin will claim to stand for stifling harmful gases, not just political freedoms.” He seems to be shifting his allegiance from America to EU, obviously a more rewarding relationship.
