The VP Debate

by Cliopatria

I was going to write a great deal about the VP debate. I had all sorts of blog commentary and mainstream media coverage to which to send faithful Rebunkers. I was going to write about how Cheney took the attacks too far and clearly alienated anyone who was not already intending to vote for him. I was going to point out that for the first time the overused word"liar" became acceptable in response to the Bush-Cheney ticket with not just one (never met Edwards before, eh, Mr. Vice President?) but several out-and-out falsehoods. I was going to point out that the issue of Edwards' Senate attendance is a red herring, as anyone who knows even a tiny bit about the way the Senate operates knows. I was going to point out how Cheney's avuncluar style at those moments when he was not going overboard on the attacks must make republicans even more annoyed with Bush's performance last week. I was going to write about the phenomenon that had conservatives thinking Cheney swept the floor with the callow challenger, liberals believing Edwards destroyed the angry VP, but how among undecideds, independents, and others not quite so committed to one side or the other saw Edwards as the winner largely because of personal decorum.

I was going to do all of these things. And it was going to be a whopper. Brilliantly crafted, witty, insightful, smart, playful without abandoning seriousness, mine may have been the blog post that redefined the entire blogosphere.

But then I remembered that Vice Presidential debates do not matter.

And so I will leave you instead with a bit more shameless self-promotion by linking to a piece from today's Midland Reporter-Telegram. I will say this about the piece -- Midland College professor Casey Hubble pretty clearly revealed his own political stripes in this piece without a whole lot of analytical substance. I always thought that when we wear the hat of commentor on events for the media, (as opposed to when we are writers of blogs or op-ed pieces) professors are supposed to take a more analytical and less partisan approach. Apparently not.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David Allan McGinnis - 3/31/2006

Derek Charles, speaking of no substance, you might also remember that ethical professors do not openly criticize each other in an open forum. Oh I guess that is unless God forbid the professor in question might be conservative, which I really don't think Hubble is. I think you owe him an apology.

Richard Lee Altman - 10/8/2004

For the VP debate to have a serious impact, either Cheney or Edwards would have needed to do something obviously groan-inducing. You know, something truly Bush-league, comparable to W's performance the week before...

While Cheney came across as an ideological liar for those of us who know better, Edwards had some strange mannerisms (SNL will have fun with his water drinking/lip licking) , seemed a little too obviously second-fiddle to Kerry (yes that's fine, but Cheney barely referred directly to Bush), and could not erase the fact he has only about 6 years in politics.

All in all, no big surprises here. Everybody knew that Cheney would sound more convincing than Bush, in his unctuous way. And Edwards proved he could hold his own against the true brain behind Bush, without looking out of his league.

Jonathan Dresner - 10/8/2004

I may be one of the only Democrats watching the debate who came away very disappointed at Edwards' performance... well, me and my wife, who had the same reaction I did. Cheney did quite well on substance (though he's wrong about most of it, Edwards did a poor job countering).

But whoever is coaching the Republicans on debate style needs to be fired: Cheney's self-muffled mic was such an amateur mistake.

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/8/2004

First, what about the coalition was debunked? It was a matter of if one considers the Iraqi police -- they are not military members in any way -- his numbers on the coalition were in fact right. Counting the nation-states in the coalition, the US has taken 88.7 or something % of casualties. Edwards never denied that they were in a coalition. So I've no idea what you are talking about. The budget numbers depend on what you count as expenditures -- his numbers may not have been right, but they were not unintentional lies. Chney saying he had never met Edwards when he had met him three times that we know of an when they sat together at a Prayer Breakfast, well, that is a lie. Both got facts wrong, as did (and will) Bush and Kerry in the debates. The list of Cheney's factual errors and lies is pretty remarkable. In any case, by any standard of politics, Edwards appears to have won, but as I also said, the VP debate is simply not that crucial. It won't have an impact.

dc

Stephen Tootle - 10/8/2004

Factcheck, Spinsanity, and the Washington Post have all debunked the Haliburton stuff. The OMB reports how much the war has cost, and it wasn't 200 billion. I am sure the coalition members consider themselves members of a coalition. These are facts. Only unreasonable people think otherwise.

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/7/2004

Steve --
What are you talking about? Not one of those was a lie, and on interpretation on balance they were probably right. Whereas it is a lie to say 1) that he'd never met edwards before that noight and 2) that he had never linked 9-11 with saddam. these are lies, in that they are not true and Cheney, unless he is retarded, knew them to be so. Edwards' assertions are ones on which reasonable people can disagree, but there was no lie in any of them.
dc

Stephen Tootle - 10/7/2004

Edwards told a few whoppers. Haliburton? 200 billion? Coalition?

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/7/2004

Almost anyone who thinks that one side overhelmingly won the debate, and someone who says that Cheney did not go on the attack where edwards did is clearly revealing their politics. You may be with the po-mo types where what people say does not matter, but a clear rendering of Hubble's comments indicates pretty clearly where he stands.
I can go with seeing it as a draw, as I largely did, though the polls of people who have not yet decided (or at least announced) their voting choice bolsters my argument -- that among the constituency that still matters, Edwards won. There are enough declared undecideds that this election is too close to predict.
In any case, I'd rather have Edwards winking than Cheney spewing lies. Then again, he wasn't winking at me, so I have that luxury.
dc

Tom Bruscino - 10/7/2004

...just because everyone we know seems to have fallen in a hole. I do think the VP debate was a draw slightly in favor of Cheney (mostly because of Edwards' strange facial expressions, did he wink at Cheney at one point, or was it just me?). I don't think there are too many undecideds left. And I couldn't tell whether Casey Hubble was excited or aggravated about what he was saying, so I do not know what his politics are.