Notes On The Vice Presidential Debate

i live blogged the debate on my crappy laptop. i don't think i'll be doing that again. It's too hard to watch and type at the same time. Here's my notes:

Edwards broke the rules in his first sentence. That wasn't nice. He spoke directly to Cheney. He knows he can get away with it now, and he's testing the moderator. Tricky lawyer. And Gwen Ifill just got done saying she was going to enforce the rules. i guess that doesn't apply to Democrats, though.

Speed up the reconstruction? Kerry's been saying it was going too fast.

Cheney sounds competent and articulate.

Edwards breaks the rules again. Directing comments to the opponent.

Edwards is asked whether Saddam Hussein would still be in power if no war. Answer the question, Senator! If we had relied only on weapons inspectors, they would have found no weapons, there would be no war, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power! As soon as the inspectors left, he'd have re-started his weapons program. The world is safer because he is gone.

John Edwards sidesteps the question and talks about Afghanistan and OBL.

Stop saying that, John. Cheney never said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11,

Cheney: Kerry and Edwards have a limited view of how to use American power. Good. Good. Spell it out for us, Dick.

Cheney bringing up Kerry's consistent pattern of pacifism, excellent.

30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues.

Cheney has good energy now.

Black jacket on Cheney, trying to look like Darth Vader.

Edwards: Kerry said he'd never give anyone a veto. Sorry John, but a global test is the same thing. It's letting world opinion influence American national security policy. Your attempted reassurance is not good enough.

Cheney brings up El Salvador. Why didn't Bush do this?

The moderator stays on the global test issue. Nice followup question. i take back what i said about her.

John Edwards' response is effective only to his base. Kerry's "global test" comment is a bell that can't be unrung. People realize that no Republican would ever propose a test.

On the other hand, when Edwards talks about the cost of the war, he scores points. This is good stuff for the independents. Could be persuasive.

Cheney counters well by challenging the accuracy of the facts behind John Edwards's cost argument. Ho ho ho! He gets the first jab in too: "you probably weren't there to vote for that."

John Edwards leans over. Is he reaching for a gun?

Now the "87 billion" makes it's first appearance of the night. Cheney: "you're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies." Nice. Things are heating up.

Haa! Now Edwards is on the defensive. He counterpunches. And Cheney is spot on with his rebuttal: "your rhetoric is not backed up by your record." Nice one, Dick!

Kerry's judgment is flawed and the record is there - he voted against weapons in the cold war-- against the first Gulf War.

Another good punch -- Howard Dean was the reason they both flip-flopped on the 87 billion. And John Edwards doesn't respond? No, he does, by invoking Halliburton!

This is going exactly according to script, isn't it?

Who gets to keep the notes they scribble afterwards? The Smithsonian? The National Archives? It's not like they're going to need them after it's over, but the notes are historically valuable.

John Edwards brings up the 1991 Gulf War coalition as an example of the kind of coalition he favors. But isn't that the war Kerry voted against?

Edwards says they should take the Iraqis out of the country to train them. But i think we're already doing exactly that, i read somewhere.

Ha! Cheney was Defense Secretary during the Gulf War. Touche! Don't preach to him about that coalition. He knows firsthand which coalition had more countries.

John Edwards compares gulf wars. But they're not analogous. The goals were different. Of course '91 took three days; we weren't trying to do what we're doing now.

Cheney is clearly winning now. He nails Edwards for demeaning the sacrifice of the Iraqis. Edwards is visibly rattled. Talk about body language! Even a seasoned litigator looks flustered when he's on the defensive.

Iraq is now our ally in the War on Terror. Perhaps our strongest, judging by their sacrifice. If the anti-war Kerry'd had his way, Iraq would still be our enemy, working against us.

John Edwards' rebuttal is off point. He plays the "things are bad in Iraq" card. Not a terribly effective rebuttal.

Kerry wants all the 911 commision reforms. Doesn't Bush too?

Zarqawi is an example of the links between Iraq and terrorism. He moved from Afghanistan to Iraq after we took out the Taliban. Doesn't it make sense? Iraq War or no Iraq War, Zarqawi is an example of how you had to follow up Afghanistan by taking out Saddam, because it was only natural that the terrorists would move to Saddam's Iraq after they got kicked out of Afghanistan.

Edwards blunders: He makes the point that there's al Qaeda in sixty countries. "How many of those countries are we gonna invade?" This contradicts Kerry's idea that we should be going after al Qaeda exclusively. If so, the answer to Edwards' question, logically, is all of them.

John Edwards wants to speed up the reconstruction, while at the same time cutting off all pay to Halliburton. How exactly is that supposed to work?

Edwards was in Jerusalem on the day of the Sbarro bombing? i hope, for his sake, that's true, because it'd be really easy to verify.

Cheney: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Owwww, that had to hurt. And you're no Jack Kennedy either, Senator Edwards. There's your sound bite for tomorrow.

Edwards is starting to unravel. Just slightly. "I did talk about Israel. He's the one who didn't talk about it!" He sounds like a whiny little kid. i think he was only trying to lighten the tone, but it ended up sounding childish. Bad move, John.

Yah i know. Those are style points. Trivial fluff. But that's what's fun about these things. Its how these debates are scored.

Now on to domestic policy. John Edwards gets his second wind. He seems to have recovered, and he knows this is where he can shine. Domestic is really John Edwards' strong suit, in contrast to Kerry who i think is more comfortable in foreign affairs.

Did i just see an Al Gore head tilt by John Edwards? i hope not, Gore is not the vice president you want to emulate.

Ifill's tax question unfairly accepts the liberal myth that tax cuts and increased revenue are mutually exclusive.

Edwards talking about increasing upper income taxes, while cutting taxes on the middle class. That Democratic plan will result in fewer jobs. What good is a tax cut when you're out of a job?

i like that they're focusing so much on taxes right up front. Republicans win whenever the dems are forced to talk about raising taxes. Even if they're talking about those with over $200,000 in income, that's within reach for a lot of small business owners. Plus, a lot of people still hope someday to get there. Not a winning issue, i don't think.

$200,000 is a multi-millionaire? if i may borrow a forgotten phrase from the 2000 debates, "that's fuzzy math."

The gay marriage issue. Cheney says the issue is judges. i wish he would say the words: full faith and credit clause.

Edwards passes up an opportunity to challenge Cheney on this marriage issue, going back to the tax talk and losing a bit of momentum.

Now he blows sunshine up Cheney's ass about his gay daughter.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage? what????? How can he say that? He's a lawyer! Full Faith and Credit Clause! WTF?

Enough with the kind words about the other guy's family, already.

Edwards says marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Ifill throws Cheney a softball, gives him a chance to bash trial lawyers and Edwards by association. Cheney won't take the bait.

This debate has had a good range of subect matter, and so far i'm impressed with the moderator, i thought Jim Lehrer was disgustingly biased, in his choice and phrasing of questions. i've been pleasantly surprised by Gwen Ifill.

i dont like the Kerry-Edwards plan for tort control, since i'm studying to be a lawyer. But i agree with John Edwards, most lawyers don't want frivolous lawsuits either.

And how does the government impose such a tort control plan on a federal system? i dont understand it. And wouldn't this just become a huge federal subsidy for a new professional expert industry.

Cheney's performance tonight, while very heartening, also makes Bush's performance last Thursday look even worse. Cheney raises the bar for Bush next time. And it must be said, that bar would not have been an issue if Bush had simply done an adequate job, instead of handing the dems a victory without a fight. His performance became the story, and it shouldnt have been. Now Bush has to prove that he can approach a minimum level of articulateness. Thankfully, he does better in the town hall format.

Edwards' biggest doozie of the night: lack of healthcare causes AIDS!

Edwards says he and Kerry want to find the terrorists and kill them before they kill us? Well, now thanks to Bush, we know where a lot of them are: in Iraq. Let's kill them there. If Kerry'd had his way, we'd be playing hide and seek with al Qaeda.

Cheney questions the questions subtly, with hardly a hint of sarcasm. Not like Rumsfeld, who basically ridicules the press.

Cheneys was laid off once? Hospitalized without health insurance? i did not know that.

Please Cheney, don't hold your hands under your chin. It blocks the microphone and muffles your voice.

Cheney's done well tonight. His name has really become synonymous with gravitas.

Kerry and Edwards want to go on offense in the War on Terror? How? What's their long term plan? With a watch list? Thats it? That's not proactive. Screening cargo? What if one gets through? We can't be perfect 100% of the time. Terrorists only have to be right once. Let's change the Middle East and spread freedom. That's the long term solution Kerry-Edwards won't talk about.

Edwards smiles, he should do that more. Edwards' "lean to the right and point with four fingers" move should be patented, or trademarked or whatever.

Hanging the flip-flop label on the administration is a loser, no one except die hard democrats are gonna buy that one.

How did Bush stop the Patient's Bill of Rights? i'm curious.

On one hand the dems are actively trying to scare college kids by saying there's going to be a draft, then they're saying Bremer's right, we need more troops. Cheney and Rummy say they're opposed to a draft, and that we don't need more troops because they trust the commanders on the ground. who havent asked for them

Oh no, the moderator fucked up. Too bad, now people will criticize her, but i think she did an outstanding job.

At the closing statement, will Cheney shock the audience by revealing that he is, in fact, Luke's father?

Will Edwards, in his closing, go for the punies, or will he limit himself to asking for only compensatory damages?

Edwards asks rhetorically whether America has ever been more divided. The answer is easy. Yes, from 1861 to 1865.

Ah, finally John Edwards mentions the millworker's son thing. He waited until his closing to do it.

If i did see incomes going down, etc, i'd blame the Democrats. So that argument is not persuasive to me.

Edwards gave a good closing though.

Cheney's closing is starting out flat. Picking up now. But he's got good eye contact, which he sometimes has trouble doing.

Cheney: "It's important that we stand up democratically elected governments as the only guarantee that they'll never again revert to terrorism or the production of deadly weapons." A very concise statement of the basic argument.

Its over, Ms. Edwards rolls out onto the stage. John Edwards got a cute kid. He should have that kid on his arm at all times, good prop, worth probably half a point in the battleground states.

i like both of these guys. It was a real good debate. Even cordial, after Edwards got burned a bit and learned to respect Cheney. Then i think Edwards regained some ground in the domestic portion. It was probably a draw, but since the foreign policy portion is more important right now, Cheney comes out a bit ahead.

Cheney is a solid debater. i never had any worries about him, and i chuckled at all the naysayers.

The debate was probably very boring to the casual viewer. i was riveted, since i love this stuff.

Vice presidential debates decide nothing, but this year, Cheney went a long way to reassure Republicans after Bush's dismal perfirmance last Thursday.