Debate Discussion, Part Deux

Victory for the Veep

I didn't hear the vice presidential debate last night (had to work late), but I read the transcript and some of the commentary. There's a fairly clear consensus that Vice President Cheney ate the very junior Senator Edwards' lunch.

The conventional wisdom before the debates was that Senator Edwards, since he's a trial lawyer, would be a tough debater and would more than hold his own against the vice president. I believed, on the other hand, that Dick Cheney would soundly defeat Edwards. I don't usually like to boast, but I think I was right about this.

Here's why I thought Cheney would (and why he did) beat Edwards:

First of all, Dick Cheney seems almost entirely imperturbable, especially in public situations where he really needs to be. A few months ago, I heard him interviewed on KIRO radio here in the Seattle area by Dave Ross (a leftist talk show host on KIRO who is now a Democratic party candidate for Congress). Ross peppered the V.P. with all of the usual left-wing talking points: Iraq was a mistake, why not go after North Korea, Halliburton, etc. Cheney handled every question in a no-nonsense, factual manner, completely deflating Ross' pointed interrogation. I hadn't heard Dick Cheney speak publicly on the issues before then, and I came away very impressed by his command of the facts and calmness in a tough situation. I knew that the V.P. would be unflappable, no matter what trial lawyer debating tactics John Edwards tried.

Second, as I mentioned just previously, Dick Cheney appears to have enormous knowledge of the issues, facts and reasoning behind the policy decisions that have been made by the Bush administration. He strikes me as an extremely intelligent, knowledgeable person, but he doesn't (to me) come across as arrogant or condescending. He actually seems rather grandfatherly. So, I didn't think there was any way John Edwards was going to win any argument based on the facts. Dick Cheney just knows his stuff too well, and he can communicate it in a way that is clear, concise and unambiguous, but personal, as Senator Edwards found out to his dismay.

Third, the Vice President has gravitas. His public demeanor is that of someone experienced, serious, knowledgeable and capable. John Edwards, by comparison, seems like a lightweight pretty boy. I think those perceptions are based, to a large degree, on the facts. Cheney has many, many years of service in public office, as a U.S. Congressman, Assistant to the President, White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and so on. Edwards is a one-term senator who was previously a trial lawyer. He almost no experience in government. Compared to Dick Cheney, Edwards is a lightweight. It showed in the debate.

Finally, in my opinion, the facts on the War on Terror, our efforts in Iraq, and domestic issues are almost all in favor of the Bush administration versus what Kerry and Edwards have been saying. As long as the debate was focused on facts and issues, rather than personality, Cheney had a huge advantage. The format of the debate, with both candidates seated, took away some of Edwards' natural plusses in charisma.

So, with all of these factors favoring Vice President Cheney, he drubbed Senator Edwards soundly. Will it make a difference in the polls? Well, perhaps not directly, but I think it restored some confidence to the Republicans that might have been lost after the first debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry. The Republican counterattack is gaining momentum. Read on!

Bush Battles Back

After the first debate, which wasn't President Bush's best showing, I maintained that Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance. Few others agreed - most maintained it was a clear victory for John Kerry. I predicted that Kerry's policy gaffes, the substance of what he said, would provide the Bush campaign with plenty of ammunition with which they could fight back. On the other hand, Kerry's campaign has nothing new to use against Bush, just the same old, discredited distortions of the issues and Bush's record.

It looks like I was right about that, too (am I getting too smug here?). The "global test" statement by John Kerry, in particular, has become a rallying point for the Bush campaign. In the vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney said this:

Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is that they are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got a very limited view about how to use U.S. military force to defend America. We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of a global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. [emphasis added] That's part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval; then in the mid-'80s he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm. It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues.

A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign, or as part of a presidential debate, cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues, and they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being willing to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with the kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies, and will guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the likes of al Qaeda.

This morning, President Bush gave an excellent speech in Pennsylvania. In it, he said:

THE PRESIDENT:  ... My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that American actions in the war on terror must pass a "global test." [emphasis added]

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE PRESIDENT:  Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats, because we'd be sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations and other leaders.  (Laughter.)

I have a different view:  America will always work with allies for security and peace.  But the President's job is not to pass a global test; the President's job is to protect the American people.  (Applause.)  Thank you all.

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE PRESIDENT:  Now, he's changed his mind.  (Laughter.)  No, he has, in all fairness.  But it is a window into his thinking.  Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to constrain America's action in the world.  These days he praises America's broad coalition in the Persian Gulf War.  But in 1991, he criticized those coalition members as "shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden."  Sounds familiar.  At that time, he voted against the war.  If that coalition didn't pass his global test, clearly, nothing will.  (Laughter and applause.)  This mind-set would paralyze America in a dangerous world.  I'll never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart.

It's clear that the Bush campaign is going to hold Kerry's feet to the fire for his ill-conceived and ridiculous "global test" remark in the debate - and they should.

The American people rightly perceive that the rest of the world does not have America's interests at heart. In fact, those countries that John Kerry so desperately wants the approval of - France, Germany, Russia, and so on - were against the U.S. removing Saddam Hussein, not out of concern for the Iraqis, but out of naked, commercial self-interest. All three countries had military and/or oil contracts with Saddam's regime. French companies were major beneficiaries of the U.N. "Oil for Food" program. French, German and Russian companies and influential individuals illegally benefited from rampant, major corruption in the same program.

But John Kerry will wait for the approval of these countries before taking military action to defend us.

I can scarcely imagine a more wrong-headed view of how our foreign and military policies should be executed. "The Kerry doctrine," as President Bush put it, is not just bad policy, it's dangerous. It seems that John Kerry would rather wait until Americans die before reacting, instead of removing threats before they are imminent. It is just plain wrong.

Over the next few weeks, President Bush and his entire campaign are going to hammer Kerry on this and the other mistakes Kerry made in the first presidential debate. George Bush wasn't very eloquent in that debate, but he made no similar mistakes on the issues, so he gave Kerry's campaign no substantial traction.

The conventional wisdom going in to the second presidential debate on Friday (October 8^th) is that President Bush will do better in the "town hall" style forum. I don't see that the conventional wisdom is necessarily right. In my view, President Bush is not as accomplished an extemporaneous speaker as John Kerry. However, I do believe that President Bush connects with people better. Unlike John Kerry, he's genuine, truly believes what he says, and is doing what he honestly thinks is best for the country. Those things are important to Americans. Let's hope that the President expresses his ideas and beliefs well in the next two debates, so that the people can make an informed decision. If he does, I believe President Bush will win the election handily. If not, I think the election will be very close. The next few weeks are going to be interesting.

Permanent link