The Village Idiots

I only caught the ending part of the debates. I actually felt a little apprehensive about listening to the debates. I guess I didn't want to here Kerry blow it--or Bush do really well. I don't think either was the case.

I think Kerry needs to talk less and focus his message more. One of the things I'd like to hear him emphasize is the fact that both he and the president believe that involvement from other nations is critical in Iraq and fighting terrorism. He should point out how badly the president has done in this regard. Therefore, if getting other big nations involved is important and the fact that Bush has not a good job at doing this, choosing Kerry is better than sticking with Bush.

Actually, Kerry did just as you suggested during the debate. I believe his point came across quite clearly, but it did backfire on him a little, because Bush kept saying that Kerry is minimizing the help of those currently (and previously) in the "Coalition of the Wilting" (as I call it), and it did sound kind of bad. Bush went on to say that Kerrycan'tbe a coalition builder by pooh-poohing the contributions that have already been made. I don't think Kerry countered that point at all.

Most people are calling the debate a "win" for Kerry, because Iraq and Homeland Security is supposed to be Bush's biggest strength. Not scoring bigger in Thursday's debate hurt him a bit.

Also, I was really getting irritated by Bush talking about Kerry as a flip-flopper and how we are going to stay the course and will not falter in Iraq. It's like he memorized a few lines and tried to say them as much as possible. I mean, I know staying on message is important, but come on! At least he could have said the same thing in a different way every once in awhile.

Kerry also didn't score a knock out punch, but over all I thought this debate was quite good. I'd have like to see them follow up on topics more, especially when one would accuse the other of misrepresenting facts.

The VP debates was good -- probably better than many previous ones. But who am I to really say. Edwards is a well-informed charmer, Cheney was a bit of a broken record, but did better than I expected he would. His weakness was often in the form of "I think his records speaks for itself" response. Anyone else have much response to this?

Well, I think Edwards did a really good job. It's hard for me to be objective when evaluating Cheney, though. I think Edwards did a good job of emphasizing certain key points and staying on message.

I have to say again (speaking of broken record) that these debates are really not set up in the best interest of voters. If there's one thing both sides should agree on, it's restructuring the debates to make them more informative and meaningful to voters.

We should have at least one debate where the candidates can, well, actually debate versus just stand there and give speeches. On a related note, did you notice (and I can't remember if this was always the case) how Edwards and Cheney would respond to their opponents remarks before answering the question that was asked? You could tell there were moments that they were both itching to engage each other in a real debate!

I would also like to see moderators challenge candidates when they make unfair characterizations of the other side. For example, characterizing Kerry as a flip-flopper. I think there's a difference between someone who has a more nuanced view of things versus someone who just changes their views for political reasons. I think a moderator would try to ensure that the candidate making that claim would back that claim up. The same can be said for some of Edward's characterizations of Cheney and Bush.

The moderator should also have someone who can instantly check on the facts that both sides use.

Does any one know if there are any petitions about improving the quality of debates?

Back to the specific debate. I just think the Bush administration cannot win on their record and performance. He will win because he's more likeable and appears more religious and resolute than Kerry.

After the way Edwards hammered home the failures of the Bush administration, if Bush wins, I'll be really depressed.

Okay, I actually watched the VP debate. I couldn't bring myself to watch the presidential debate, mostly, because I cannot bear to watch the president. Kerry could have broke out into a bout of Tourettes, or proclaimed himself the anti-Christ, and I would still vote for him.

I agree with Reid, regarding the format of the debate. It was a joke. There was no real exchange of ideas, and the time constraints did not give the candidates sufficient opportunity to respond. And by the end of the debate, both candidates looked tired.

While I don’t think there was any clear winner in the debate, there were a couple of surprises. Cheney actually came off as likeable, and I despise Cheney. I mean I really hate the man--humanity would probably benefit from his death.

Edwards was confident and on top of his game. He was eloquent, and more importantly, he was presidential, or at least vice-presidential.

I didn't hear *everything* in the debate last night, but did the energy policy 'task force' come up at all? It seems like a forgotten issue, but seems like one that could be used to characterize the way this administration sets policy. It would have fit in nicely w/ Edwards' litany of 'they had a choice, and they sided with the drug companies/insurance companies, etc". This was one of the best rhetorical moments of the debate.

From the 2000 VP debates, I remember getting the impression that Cheney was very an intelligent, competant, and somewhat likeable person. I just disagree with his policies, and the his involvement with Enron and the formation of energy policy.

I didn't here Edwards bring that up, but I wish he would have. To me, Cheney's connection and talks with Ken Lay are more disturbing than his connection with Halliburton. (Cheney mentioned checking out Factcheck.org, which I did. While he didn't doesn't directly profit from Halliburton (or suffer if Halliburton does poorly), I still don't think we should completely ignore the ties he has--and perhaps more importantly, may have in the future--with the organization.)

I don't like the fact that candidates can throw out innuendo without allowing the opposing candidate or the moderator from exposing remarks that are innuendo. Edwards did that with the Halliburton remarks.

One or two of the questions asked by the moderator were really lame, too. I think she asked Edwards if he felt personally attacked by the remarks about trial lawyers being the cause of high healthcare prices.

In my eyes, Edwards won the debate, although I don't know what most viewers/listeners would think. It's clear the President has not handled the situation in Iraq/Terrorism well, he is not fiscally responsible, etc. The only question to me is can Kerry do a better job? Obviously, I think the answer is yes, and while there is no definitive proof that he would do a better job (how can there ever be?), I don't think there is any strong evidence that he would NOT be a competant president. He has all the qualifications and characteristics to be a very good president, imo.

On a sidenote, I'd really like to see an indepedent journalist analyze the charge of Kerry's indecisiveness and so called, "flip-flopping." Is Kerry too politically motivated? Is indecisiveness a legimitate weakeness?

Does anyone remember the question regarding the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? After Edwards' answer, Cheney's only response was to thank Edwards for his kind words regarding Cheney's family. This was an interesting move on Cheney's part. Cheney was going to lose this round anyway, so he declined any real response that might have made things worse. Any thoughts about this?

I would have also liked more clarification on the "numbers" of the war in Iraq. The two sides were far apart. Cheney stating that the cost (dollar cost) of the war was around 40 billion to Edwards' charge of 200 billion.

For those interested in the "facts" claimed by both VP candidates yesterday check out this article, Cheney and Edwards Mangle the Facts: at Factcheck.org.

Here's a summary from the site:

Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs

You can also read about the facts in the first presidential debate at Distortions and Mischaracterizations at the First Presidential Debate

Summary from the site:

In the first of three scheduled debates between Bush and Kerry both candidates sometimes departed from the facts.

Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is "spending money" and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by "outsourcing" fighting to Afghans.

Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion.

John,

According to Factcheck.org, the number is about $120 billion to date. You can read a more thorough article about Kerry's distortion here, Kerry Exagerrates the Cost of War in Iraq. Here's a quote from the end of the article:

Kerry would be correct to say the cost of the war in Iraq "is now $120 billion and counting." He would be well within the bounds of argument to say "this war will cost $200 billion," by some unspecified date in the future. But when he says the cost "is" $200 billion, he's straining for effect and going beyond what the facts will bear.

I'd like to know how much money are allies are contributing. According to the recent Atlantic Monthly article ("Bush's Lost Year" Oct. 2004), Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz insisted the Iraqi oil and contributions from allies would minimize the cost of war (p.70).

What is a stronger indictment on the Bush administration is the amount of money that is NOT going to homeland security. From the same article Fallows reports:

Because of outlays for Iraq, the United States cannot spend $150 billion for other defensive purposes. Some nine million shipping containers enter American ports each year; only two percent of them are physically inspected, because inspecting more would be too expensive. The Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, is a vast grab-bag of federal agencies, from the Coast Guard to the Border Patrol to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service; ongoing operations in Iraq cost significantly more each month than all Homeland Security expenses combined. The department has sought to help cities large and small to improve their "first responder" systems, especially with better communications for their fire and emergency medical services. This summer a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that fewer than a quarter of 231 major cities under review had received any of the aid they expected. An internal budget memo from the Administration was leaked this past spring. It said that outlays for virtually all domestic programs, including homeland security, would have to be cut in 2005—and the federal budget deficit would still be more than $450 billion.

So the amount of money diverted to Iraq--arguably due to the administration's poor handling of Iraq--has severely compromised our defenses at home. The cost of Iraq has real consequences in our domestic security here at home. That's a point that needs to be hammered home.

There's a nice Knight-Ridder piece in the Advertiser today that does some fact-checking on some things brought up in the debate. I believe most of it was quoted from Fact-Check.org, but I am not sure.

I, too, was surprised that Cheney came off so well. In fact, he came across a lot better than Bush did in the first debate. I think the format (sitting at a round table, no crowd noise, etc.) suited him. Edwards did well, but then I expected that.

I agree with Reid. We need to have a real debate where the candidates can respond and challenge one another. There would need to be a strong moderator who would keep things on track and keep it fair to both candidates, though. I am not sure who could do that job!

Regarding the $200 billion figure for the Iraq war, I read in the Honolulu Advertiser that the current amount is $120 billion, but estimated costs through next summer is $200 billion.

John, I did notice Cheney's non-response about the Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. Cheney has said before that he disagrees w/ GWB on this, but that the President makes the policy and he will follow GWB's lead. I think I would have liked it better if he were honest and just said he and the President disagree and how can anyone expect two people to agree on everything. That he (Cheney) gives the President his point of view and while he listens respectfully and factors it in, it is the President who ultimately makes the policy.

I think the VP candidates took more "cheap shots" at each other than the Presidential candidates did. I didn't like the whole section about the Iraqi War, though, because you could have superimposed Kerry's head over Edwards' and GWB's over Cheney's and it would have been the same. It's like they memorized the company line and can only repeat the catch phrases verbatim. Ugh.

If you had a real debate, the candidates would have more difficulty repeating phrases in the same language.

I think you could find a good, fair moderator. Jim Lehrer is very good. You could maybe pick two people, one from each party.

Re: Cheney's non-response.

I guess, he just couldn't say much. I didn't think very much of the lack of response myself. I don't think it means anything positive or negative with regard to Cheney or Bush.

Cheney said in his initial response to the question that he disagrees with the President on the Constitutional ammendment. Edwards's response to Cheney's answer pretty much made it clear that it's an issue they mostly agree on. It was Edwards who brought up Cheney's daughter.

When the moderator shot it back to Cheney, from a rhetorical standpoint, there was nothing for Cheney to say. So what he came out with was graceful and somewhat touching, I thought. There's no point to debating an issue that the speakers happen to agree on, and Edwards didn't see the point in driving home the fact that the Vice President's boss has a differing view. That was plain enough.

As for "real" debating, my limited understanding of formal debate is actually a lot closer to what we saw, except that in competitive debate, the moderator assigns positions, rather than the speaker voicing his own.

Unless I remember incorrectly, the format is usually:

1. First Affirmative Constructive
2. Negative Cross-Examinations
3. First Negative Constructive
4. Affirmative Cross-Examination
5. First Affirmative Rebuttal
6. First Negative Rebuttal
7. Second Affirmative Rebuttal

What we saw in the Vice-Presidential debate was the same basic format without the cross-examination, I think.

As for this comment:

On a related note, did you notice (and I can't remember if this was always the case) how Edwards and Cheney would respond to their opponents remarks before answering the question that was asked? You could tell there were moments that they were both itching to engage each other in a real debate!

The format was the agreed-upon format approved by both candidates, so I found this more annoying than anything else Tuesday night. If you're going to make the rules so lame (and I disagree that they were SO lame), you need to play by the rules. Edwards broke the agreed-upon rules more than Cheney did, so from an objective, who-presented-his-argument-best-within-the-framework-of-the-rules perspective, Edwards lost, BIG TIME.

Most of the undecided people in this country, I'd venture to presume, weren't watching this debate hoping to be CONVINCED of anything. Like me, they were probably just trying to get a clear picture of what the candidates stood for and why. At least, that's what I get from my colleagues at work. Measuring the debate format this way, I'd say it was a successful debate.

Measuring the winner this way, I'd say Edwards just squeaked ahead of Cheney, because he most eloquently stated the positions of his party.

I'll tell you something, though. From a one-heartbeat-away perspective, I think Cheney was much, much, much, MUCH more impressive! I thought the question that asked, "What makes you more qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency?" was excellent. That's the kind of thing voters need to hear from Vice-Presidential candidates.

I agree with Mitchell about the interaction between Cheney and Edwards about the gay marriage issue.

As for my comments about wanting to hear a real debate, I didn't mean that I wanted them to follow the standard debate format, so much as I wanted them to really engage each other in a substantive discussion about the positions, qualifications and performance of each candidate.

The time limits for speaking or responding are often ridiculously short. I remember when Edwards brought up Halliburton, and Cheney responded by saying that he needs a lot of time to respond adequately to the charge. He was clearly frustrated, and I personally wished he had the time to respond. In addition, the number of opportunities to question and challenge assertions are also very limited. Finally, the candidates do not get to direct questions to the other questions, which is critical, imo, for a really meaningful discussion or debate.

As it is candidates can make a lot of assertions and claims without those claims being thoroughly challenged and examined. Viewers/listeners are often left uncertain about who to believe, and candidates can effectively use innuendo to discredit their opponents.

This was why both candidates responded to previous remarks during times when they were asked questions about new topics. Yes, the candidates agreed to this format, but they did so because it is way safer for them. Yet, they also realize and would want the time and ability to respond and question their opponents. They just want their cake and eat it, too.

It's really, really sad that the candidates are willing to adopt this debate format. It's sad that there isn't more of a public outcry and demand for more informative and substantive debates.

There was a line in the debate that I found disturbing. Both Edwards and Cheney said it, and had I bothered to watch the Presidential debate I'm sure it probably came up several times there as well. The line or some form of it: We will hunt down the terrorists and kill them.

I have two concerns regarding this rhetoric. The first has to do with the idea that killing terrorists will bring about an end to terrorism, and the second is the "matter-of-fact" way the candidates announce "we will kill them."

The first issue speaks of the difficulty in waging a war against an abstraction--the war on drugs or the war on terror. These wars are unwinable. Killing the leaders of al Qaeda will not end terrorism, and the resulting safety is temporary at best. Until we are able to deal with the roots of terrorism, not Islamic fundamentalism, but gross injustices in the world, the seeds of terrorism will continue to flourish. No matter how many terrorists we kill, there will always be others.

The second issue: There is something obscene in the way we casually speak of killing. To me, this is a bigger concern regarding the sanctity of human life than abortion or assisted suicide. It has become all too easy to speak of killing another human being. We have turned war into a voyeuristic act, the ultimate of reality television

John,

I agree with your assessment of eliminating or significantly reducing the threat of terrorism. I have been playing to write something about that in the future.

As for whether both Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards are thinking that the US can win this war simply by killing people, I'm not sure. If anything I think Bush seems to think along those lines more than Kerry does.

As to the second issue, I'm glad you raised those concerns about callous talk of killing people. It's something we should all be wary of. Having said that, I think candidates speak that way to reassure those that are really fearful of the threat of terrorism. It doesn't necessarily reassure me, but I think they believe a large of group of people need to be reassured that the government is taking strong measures to prevent terrorism. Saying the government is going to go out and kill these people provides a much stronger message than saying the gov't is going improve social, political and economic conditions in the terrorist hotbeds.

I listened to some commentary after the debate (something I haven't been doing), and the pundits were saying it's a tie. From my vantage point, the president didn't look good. I think he can point to very few successes in his administration, and I can't think what he has that would make anyone think that he can do a better job from what he's been doing. His main strength is to try and say that Kerry can't be a good president, and use the liberal word to make people not vote for him.

I also thought the president was getting a little hot under the collar, and it didn't look too good.

Some other comments:

I think Kerry should have repsonded to the charge that he can't lead others if he's saying the Iraq war is the wrong war.

I think the moderator let Bush respond to questions and at times didn't let Kerry respond to Bush's criticisms against him.

The last question was sort of unfair in that Kerry didn't have to also give three errors he had made. He just piled on criticisms towards the president.

One pundit I heard said the Kerry appeared haughty, that he was lecturing the president. I was a little surprised at that because I felt Kerry has done a good job of not feeding the perception that the Democrats are snobs. What do others thing about that?

Check out the latest factcheck.org article on the mistated "facts" in the second presidential debate: "Distortions Galore at Second Presidential Debates"

I just finished listening to the debate on npr.

Here are some of my impressions:

1. I'm kinda tired of hearing the candidates repeat the same phrases over and over again, moreso with Kerry than Bush for some reason. I guess, they speak as if they're speaking to someone who has heard this for the first time.

2. I thought Kerry had some devasting responses--both in terms of presenting counter-arguments as well as the language he used. The remark about criticizing Kerry about fiscal policy was like Tony Soprano criticizing someone on law and order was really good.

3. Bush's remark about Kerry not voting for the Gulf War--and something about Kerry thinks there's no test that can be passed--was really good. I was upset that the moderator didn't allow Kerry to answer. I would have liked to hear an answer to that question, not just so that Kerry had a chance to respond, but to hear his explanation.

4. Finally, I just find the format intolerable.

Mitchell said,

Most of the undecided people in this country, I'd venture to presume, weren't watching this debate hoping to be CONVINCED of anything. Like me, they were probably just trying to get a clear picture of what the candidates stood for and why. At least, that's what I get from my colleagues at work. Measuring the debate format this way, I'd say it was a successful debate.

I think this debate was similar to the VP debate. Yet, I don't see how you can get a really clear picture of the candidates because their claims are not challenged enough--not be each other, nor the moderator. There are so many times when I wish either the opponent or moderator would address the claims made by a candidate, but nope, they just move on to the next question. That's aggravating, and we should not tolerate this. Then again, what the heck can we do about it.

I watched the last presidential debate last night and find myself unimpressed with both candidates. They must be tired after all the campaigning (who wouldn't be?) but they looked a little off-kilter last night. Both stumbled around a bit, although I'd have to give GWB a point in the winner's column for that.

John, I also found the talk about hunting down terrorists and killing them very disturbing. I notice that Kerry/Edwards use that line more than Bush/Cheney. I guess it's because Bush feels confident they've cornered the market on being "tough" on terrorism, while Kerry may feel that voters my question his "commitment" in that area. It was chilling to hear Kerry say those words last night and no one seemed to think twice about it.

All the spinning that went on during the debate was making me dizzy. Pell grants and quotes about Bush not really worrying about Osama bin Laden. Health care plans and tax cuts presumably going to the lower and middle classes. Ugh. It's just better to go to factcheck.org.

Looking back on the debates, they seem to have been more substantive than previous debates. The rhetoric seemed more focussed on facts and details, more than patriotic slogans or clever zingers. Both candidates stuck to issues and didn't resort to cheap shots. I appreciate that.

For all the teasing Bush gets, I thought he proved to be sufficiently intelligent. I mean, he did fairly well against, Kerry--someone who could really marshal his facts to make a point. That's no small thing, especially given the President's record of the past four years. (The more cynical of you may say that Bush was trained real well, and that may be the case. I'm not saying he's an intellectual giant, but he showed some intelligence by holding his own.)

And Kerry--even if I may not feel like he would fight for everything I believe in--I do believe he has the skills and character to be a very good president. He has what it takes, imo. My hope is that other people will see that as well.

One other thing I liked in the debate. There was a little inspirational moment during the last debate. It came with Kerry's response to religion's role in each candidate's life. Kerry mentioned the verse in James about "Faith without works is dead." I thought that was a really good point that summed up the way I feel about expressing Christian values in government. In short, if the actions and policies of a president are consistent with Christian values--particularly a wide variety of issues--I believe that candidate is more Christian than a candidate that sounds Christian, but does not implement policy consistent with Christian teaching.

What is most sobering to me is that the candidates (I think) have differentiated themselves pretty clearly in the debates, and the American public just might decide on Bush anyway for a further continuation of the direction already established. I don't know if there's any plea of ignorance that can be reserved for the future.

Did anyone read the theories about the Bush jacket "bulge"? His misstep on "oh, never mind" totally makes me believe he was wired.

I heard about the theories, but I don't really pay much attention to them, and I hope other Kerry supporters don't either. Ridiculing Bush's intelligence will help Bush, imo. Up until now, I think that has been kept to a minimum (at least on the campaign trail so far).

I think the candidates have distinguished themselves from each other. The thing is have enough voters watched these debates and read enough articles to see this disinction?

Some people I know are reluctant to switch presidents in a time of war and with the threat of terror. That's a valid concern. Kerry needed to prove that he would be capable and dependable. If you know his background and paid attention, I think you would feel he's made a pretty strong case, but if you haven't, that's another story. How would you respond to someone like that?

(Btw, if it wasn't for the above, I think Kerry would be in the lead.)

New and Recycled Distortions at the Last Presidential Debate

There are also other articles on the site, so check those out.

What we need to do now after reading these fact corrections is draw some conclusions. What do the real facts mean? Do the candidates distortions and factual errors mean anything significant?

Anyone, anyone...

It depends on what you mean by "significant." It sounds like everyone here has already made up his or her mind about whom to vote for. Why does examining the debates matter?

I think that the only person here who might possibly change his or her mind is Grace, and I only say that because she was hesitant to cast her vote before election day in case some revelation about one of the candidates emerged.

In fact, I suggest that the candidates themselves don't matter so much--except for me, I don't think there's a conservative one among us. Given the incumbent President, admit it: you'd vote for the Democrat, whoever was put on the ballot.

Is there anything John Kerry could say in one of these debates, factual or errant, that would make you say, "Damn! I'm switching my vote?" Seems highly unlikely.

Okay, I take it back. There is SOMETHING that might cause me to change my vote, but even if I do, I'm not switching to Bush or Kerry. My second choice is Nader.

I agree that most people would vote for Kerry (including Grace) no matter what.

Still, I think there would be some value to analyzing and drawing conclusions from the facts. Why? Well, I sometimes think other people who don't regularly freqent this place may read some of the posts. Second, even if you're going to stick with Kerry it's good to see if the facts actually justify your decision or not.

One more thing. A well-thought ou and fair anaylsis of the candidates based on facts can be very useful when talking to other people about the upcoming election. I think promoting the idea of basing one's decision on substantive, fact-based issues--versus fantacism (coming from both sides)--is an important thing to do.

Actually, the debates did help me decide. Kerry didn't have a lock on my vote. In fact, in the last 2 elections I haven't voted for the democratic candidate for President.