Both men would have been outwitted by any half-way competent minister or spokesperson from the British or Australian parliament.
That was my immediate reaction to a debate in which both men spent some time avoiding the questions they had been asked, in a desperate attempt to get to their stump speech or talking points.
It was strange indeed that Cheney passed up the opportunity entirely to respond to some of Edwards' charges. Edwards did slightly better, he responded to some of Cheney's attacks ... several unrelated questions later.
Who knows what it would have been like if it had been a real debate, with a give and take between the candidates. Obviously the format for the debates has to have some pretty tight rules about speaking time and opportunities to respond. But the 2 minute answer, 90 second response, 30 second rebuttal format, and then onto the next question gives the candidates little opportunity to have a conversation with each other, to actually engage and debate.
I can understand that the moderators want to work from a list of pre-determined questions, and not be placed in the position of having to think on their feet in a way that might they unwittingly interject their own opinions into the mix. But, this set-up has most of the disadvantages of a moderator, and few of the advantages.
Edwards did well on foreign policy to hammer home the "notion" (fact!) that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and that Cheney has lied the most about that.
But really, is it beyond the combined talents of the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign to think up a 30 second answer to the $87 billion question?!
Kerry and Edwards voted for the $87 billion to be funded by taxes on people earning over $400,000 a year, and against the version that put the bill on the credit card.
I don't know, how about "[Senator Kerry and] I believe that this war is so important that I will ask the wealthiest Americans to make a small sacrifice, and pay for it now, so that our children will be both safe and free of debt. President Bush does not take the war seriously. He can't even ask the American people to pay for it now, and said he would veto any bill that paid for the war now."
As for the charge that Kerry and Edwards have been inconsistent on the Iraq war. Would it be too hard to explain that the October 2002 Senate vote was not a vote for war, but to give the President the authorization to declare war if necessary. Would it be too hard to say that in March 2003 the weapons inspections were revealing that Hussein was not an imminent threat, and that war was not necessary then. I think not. It would just require Kerry to assume the American people have a greater capacity to remember events and follow an argument than Bush assumes they do.
Posted by robe0419 at October 6, 2004 11:54 AM