<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Thoughts on the Debate

Just a few thoughts on the debate last night:

1. Wondering why Edwards made such a big deal about Saddam having nothing to do with 9-11? Obvious, right?

Nope. 42% of all people, and 62% of Republicans, think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9-11. I think Atrios summed it up best when he said that Republicans were "too stupid to breathe." But I'm not being partisan or anything. We should all just hold hands together and sing Kum-Ba-Yah.

2. It made a big impression when Cheney said that he had never met Edwards before that night, right?

Whoops. Cheney not only met Edwards at a 2001 prayer breakfast, he specifically named him from the podium.

And now a short Q and A about this last item.

Q: What is your reaction to this revelation?

A: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Q: Care to follow up?

A: (snort) (snort) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (cough)

3. Best thing about the debate? Gwen Ifill's questions.

4. Worst thing about the debate? The candidates' refusal to answer those questions.

5. Biggest missed opportunity of the night? Gwen Ifill didn't say "Now, because neither of you answered the question I asked, here it is again. What -- should -- the federal government -- DO -- that's a verb -- DO -- about -- AIDS?"

6. As for who won the debate, I don't think that either one of them changed any minds. It will have the least effect on the partisans, who will take what "their" candidate said without checking further. The rare person that bothers to check into the accuracy of what was said will find that Edwards had the better of the fact-checking, but who's willing to do that?

And in a final thought, I have absolutely reached the breaking point over a new RNC tactic -- the "global test" comment by Kerry. Jon Stewart tagged it pretty well last night, but I have just been disgusted at the attempt to turn Kerry's words.

What did Kerry say? (1) America has the right of preemptive action. (2) No one has the right to veto America's defense decisions. (3) But when we take action, we need to be shoot straight with America and the world so that they will trust us when we take that action.

Not hard, right?

The attempt to turn "global test" into some sort of echo of the 1972 comment about a UN veto of military action is (1) so false as to be functionally retarded, and (2) so callous as to be completely despicable.



 8:05 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?