After watching the debate last night, I posted this on my weblog (marcoe.net). Feel free to comment there or here on the MC board. What's YOUR take on the debate? (Maybe this is an entirely new discussion thread, JimH?)
Good Defense Wins.
The Twinkies won this evening due in part to their stellar defensive efforts. Defense, that active, engaging response to an offensive, is oftentimes the difference between winning and losing. Our living room of onlookers spent the better part of the evening switching between both the baseball game and the Vice Presidential debate being held in Cleveland. I had expected better from Cheney. Though two minutes of his debating is easily more meaty then 90 minutes of Bush's--like comparing a Thanksgiving turkey to an itsy-bitsy chicken wing--the attitude is much the same; both Bush and Cheney, I would suggest, project a care-free, we-have-nothing-to-prove attitude that's condescending not only to their immediate opponents, Kerry and Edwards, but also to the discerning public.
The undecided population can be swayed in a number of ways. I'm sure the snearing and smirking so common to the Republican body language repertoire appeals to some on the fence. Why, I couldn't tell you. Where are the answers? Where are the well reasoned rebuttals? The evidence? Where is the Republican Defense?
Any athlete knows defense is an on-your-toes affair--be ready for anything the opponent might throw at you. Repitiion of posture merely breeds predicability and, more importantly, easy pickins for the offense. Worse yet--stand still and the battle is already lost.
Why is it, then, that both Cheney and Bush feel they can respond to their opponents with blatantly unengaging hogwash like, "the record speaks for itself." If the record were so self-evident and convincing, would there be a need for debate? Would the country be so divided, as Edwards suggested? Time and time again, this evening, I felt like Edwards hit the ball right at Cheney, only for him to stand still, not evening raising his glove.
Edwards and Kerry are repetitive in their own right. Edwards' embarked on the majority of his answers with speak of a "plan." More often than not, however, he elaborated. A plan is something that can be developed--nearly like a thesis, I would say. "Good people working hard" (paraphrased, mind you) and self-evident record speak is more rally call and unproven, unsubstantiated fact (respectively) than reason, valid point or evidence of why the American People should reelect BushandCheney.
I like listening. I like two sides to an issue...two convincing, solid sides. Controversey is entertaining, no? I had hoped Cheney would turn the tables tonight, at least making the race a bit more interesting and making everyone think a little more than they generally like to. Rather, the debate seemed to prove that, although Cheney invariably has more experience and argumentative ability, he still lacks respect for his adversaries; more importantly, he needs to have respect for Kerry and Edwards if him and Bush are going to stop the slide in the polls that seems to be taking place. Not simply the Kerry-served-and-he's-patriotric respect, but the I'll-engage-your-discussion-and-concerns respect. That, as opposed to the I'm-not-going-to-answer-the-moderator's-question-and-instead-diss-you approach.
Lastly, just as a note, did anyone notice the insensitive response Cheney gave to Edwards' claim that 90% of the casualties in Iraq were Americans? That's just "dead wrong," he said. No pun intended, I'm guessing. My turn to *smirk* and *snear*.
Needless to say, the Twins game saw a little more time on the television screen than did the stage in Cleveland.
Poll
29 (17.3%)
Author
Topic: POLL: Your choice for President of the U.S.A.? (Read 27823 times)