October 06, 2004

Post-VP Debate Spin

This Vice Presidential debate was not vital to either campaign. Few voters go to the polls and make their decision based on who the VP would be. George Bush and John Kerry are the ones voters are deciding between. The role of this debate was for both campaigns to hone arguments that will be used later in the campaign and to maintain or regain momentum. Kerry seems to have "won" the first debate mostly because many Republicans were dissapointed in the President's performance. (I wasn't since I declared it a draw.) The polls (except for the goofy Newsweek one) remained almost the same before and after.

I'm going to agree with Fred Barnes' post-debate reaction. He thought Dick Cheney won when discussing foreign policy, but John Edwards did well when talk came back to domestic issues. That's not a surprise. Both men were good at stating their cases in the areas their campaigns have been focusing on.

First on foreign policy, especially Iraq, Edwards was on the offensive. He attacked Cheney for claiming there was a Iraq connection to the Sep. 11 attacks. Cheney responded by saying he made no such connection. Instead, he's emphasised again and again Saddam's connection to terrorist organizations. In Cheney's defense, Sep. 11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton went further than the Vice President when he said, "[T]here were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq going back clear to the early 1990s when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was In Afghanistan. I don't think there's any dispute about that."

Cheney later said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's people had assistance from Saddam, were in Baghdad before the war, and are still there. That was in response to Edwards' use of a story saying the CIA isn't so sure about Zarqawi's connections to al Qaeda. Let's be reasonable: Zarqawi didn't have to be directly connected to Osama bin Laden or take orders from him. The man is a known Islamist terrorist who is currently trying to keep Iraq from her God-given liberty.

Edwards used 20-20 hindsight to criticize the Bush administration. The best way to evaluate whether President Bush did the right thing is to put oneself in his shoes. On Sep. 11, 2001, the nation was attacked by Islamist terrorists. The President quickly attacked al Qaeda in Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. But the President was thinking beyond just Osama bin Laden. He realized that the global environment changed. Theats existed that weren't realized before the September attacks. It wasn't enough to just go to Afghanistan. Places where rogue nations mixed with Islamist terrorists were potential hotspots. Saddam's Iraq had a track record of defying the international community. They invaded two neighbors and used WMD. Saddam allowed Abu Nidal to stay in his country and gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Terrorist connections combined with a history of WMD and aggression made Saddam a threat in the post-Sep. 11 world. No one argued otherwise, not John Kerry or John Edwards.

Intelligence isn't perfect. Sometimes it's really, really wrong. In the question of if Saddam had WMD, the world intelligence community was wrong, because no one argued before the war that Saddam didn't have WMD. The question was how to deal with them.

The President had to act with the intelligence at hand. No one, not John Kerry or John Edwards, can wave a magic wand and give the pre-war President Bush all that we know today. If one could then we wouldn't be arguing about Iraq, because we probably wouldn't be there. An intellectually honest arguement would understand what the President knew then. That's something Kerry Edwards can't and won't do.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Bush should have invaded Iraq. But we do know he acted. We still don't know how a Kerry Edwards administration would fight the Islamist War. Kerry's "global test" came up tonight, and Edwards couldn't defend it. He did state that Kerry would go out and kill those to want to attack us. However, he couldn't explain what a global test was and how it would apply in Kerry's decision-making process. The most he could explain was it had something to do with U.S. international credibility.

If so, how about this scenerio: a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon is detonated in Columbus, Ohio killing 50,000 people. U.S. intelligence indicates the culprits were Islamists headquartered in Armenia. However, the intel isn't rock solid. It's based upon incomplete phone records, e-mails, and informants who aren't entirely trustworthy. Despite the problems with the information, the intelligence community is very sure Armenian Islamists were behind the attack. A President Kerry takes this information to the Russians, French, Germans, etc. They look at it, but don't buy it. They may not dispute any of it, but have political positions of their own to maintain--certainly Russia would. For whatever reason the international community doesn't accept the U.S.'s conclusion. What does President Kerry do? I don't think this information meets Kerry's global test, yet just about every American is screaming for vengence. Would Kerry invade Chechnya? Would he nuke the place? We don't know what a President Kerry would do, and that should frighten all Americans. Edwards could have sat right up and said those two words were a mistake, but he didn't. Not saying much says a lot about John Kerry's foreign policy views.

On how things were going in Iraq, Edwards said things were going poorly, and the public knew things were going poorly because of what they saw and read in the media. What the Senator fails to realize is the MSM is just a window upon reality. It doesn't display everything. When you take into account that much (not all) of the MSM has a strong "news as entertainment" element along with a Leftist bias one should conclude that a complete picture isn't shown. There is a lot of good being done is Iraq that's left off the front pages of newspapers and ignored as top stories on newscasts.

An arguement from the foreign policy discussion that I think will last beyond the expiration date of this debate was Cheney accusing Kerry Edwards of politicizing their Iraq votes in response to the surge of Howard Dean. Publically, the doctor is seen as the firebrand Bush basher who was leading an anti-war crusade only to flame out with his "Dean Scream." It demonstrates the political (mis)calculations the Democratic ticket has made.

When it came to domestic issues, John Edwards was in full stride. He delivered parts of his stump speech but not sounding like that's what he was doing. He emphasised health care tonight. Edwards even answered a question on AIDS among black American women by talking about health care as a whole. There was plenty of talk from him about the problems, but his solution was standard Lefy big government. All Cheney responded with was with the administration's Medicare bill that pays for prescription drugs--a compassionate conservative version of big government--and how lawyers run amuck are causing costs to go up. He didn't go after Edwards and tie him to socialized medicine A.K.A. HillaryCare.

At one point, Edwards admitted there were "too many lawsuits." Cheney, at least, could have built upon that. To Cheney's credit he did make the case that excessive lawsuits are causing malpractice insurance to skyrocket and force doctors to avoid high-risk patients.

No surprise that taxes came up as an issue. Dick Cheney defended the Bush tax cuts and pointed out all the times John Kerry voted to raise taxes. John Edwards talked about how Kerry would raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. Mark that down, because Edwards stated before millions of people that if his ticket won, taxes would go up. Cheney spoke of the impact of such a tax hike. Many small business would fall into Kerry Edwards' version of the affluent. A tax hike on them would prevent them from growing their enterprises and hiring more people. In short, the Democrats' tax increase would be a job killer. And Edwards complained about all the jobs losses during the Bush administration. (The Washington Post has already declared both candidates' arguments to be misleading.)

There were some some fireworks. Much more than at last Thursday's debate between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. One was an interesting back and forth had on Halliburton, the company Dick Cheney used to run. John Edwards went off on the no-bid contract the company got to provide services for the military in Iraq. Edwards went on to mention all the criminal problems the company is dealing with (bribery, cooked books, deals with Iran and Libya) in an attempt to smear Cheney by association.

The Vice President countered it by calling it a "smoke screen." Edwards didn't attempt to connect any crime to Cheney. It was merely mudslinging that FactCheck.org doesn't buy.

Cheney zinged Edwards by pointing out how little Kerry Edwards has been doing anything in the Senate. He said, "Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you 'Senator Gone.'" Then he said that he presided over the Senate but "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Who won? I give the edge to Cheney because he dealt with the election's most important issue, the Islamist War, in a serious way. Cheney reinforced the attitude that the Bush administration would be steadfast in fighting the war and would have no hesitation in striking back at America's enemies. Edwards was good on domestic issues using stories to connect policy with everyday life. However, in Edwards' America you'd think it was the Great Depression redux. Everyone is out of work. Jobs are going overseas. Nobody has health care. Edwards used to speak about Two Americas. Tonight, it seemed only the downtrodden one existed. Most importantly for Edwards, he didn't clarify Kerry's foreign policy vision, especially his global test. Inconsistent leadership could bring serious harm to the United States. For showing consistency and toughness, Cheney won tonight. As for the election, the debate reinforced the conventional wisdom: If the Islamist War remains the most important issue Bush wins. If somehow it moves to the back burner, then Kerry will be the next resident of the White House.

Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate"

"Cheney and Edwards Go Toe to Toe"

UPDATE: If you slogged throught this much-too-long analysis of an event that won't affect the campaign much, then you're a full-fledged political junkie who needs for to read. Here you go:

• Swanky Conservative thinks Cheney won because, "Post Sept. 11. America wants leadership that is experienced, serious, and on the job."
  
• Kevin used the mop analogy.
  
• Captain Ed: "Edwards couldn't break out of his stump speeches."
  
• Erick Erickson goes with the sound effects: "Screeeeeeecchhh! Is that the sound of Kerry's momentum coming to a hault?"
  
• Hindrocket "was surprised at how easily and repeatedly Edwards became flustered."
  
• James Joyner: "Overall, I think Cheney won this one. Moreover, the debate was much more illuminating than Round 1 of the presidential debates."
  
• Taegan Goddard: "The best that can be said about Cheney's performance is that he fed red meat to his conservative base."
  
• Aaron Benson: "Cheney won this debate because he successfully portrayed Kerry as vaccilating and unsteady. He also revealed how tremendously unready John Edwards is for this job, and undoubtedly left Democrats wishing they could sub in a Joe Biden to close the gravitas gap."
  
• Stephen Green: "Aside from points, Cheney won, in my mind, by reminding me what he brings to the Republican ticket - while Edwards lost because he reminded me exactly what he doesn't add to the Democratic ticket."