|
For all the debates, I'm trying to watch as an "uninformed, undecided", just to see if I can figure out what the prevailing sentiment is likely to be.
What hit me, about mid way through, was that Cheney was really using numbers effectively. For example:
"CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent. With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion...$120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq...The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion... plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion...better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator."
Now, these may not necessarily be accurate or even honest figures but notice the effect: the average TV viewer is not likely to run all this shit through a calculator, double-check with the CBO records, etc, etc. What they are likely to conclude is: "Geez, this Cheney guy has his ducks in a row."
That's crucial. Edwards, I think, is fighting the image of being a lightweight. Unfortunately, Edwards often went with emotional/rhetorical appeals. For example look at his rebuttal to the Cheney statement above:
"The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night....They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything...to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe. He laid out his plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there and because they have created a haven for terrorists."
Now, again, put yourself in the mind of an undecided, uninformed voter. What do you hear? You hear a politician asking you to believe what has been said. No explanation of why he says $200 billion and Cheney says $120 billion. No explanation of how Cheney's 50/50 casualty rate sidesteps the point. Instead, you have a politician who is basically saying "trust me" and the American voter is way too jaded to accept that sort of appeal - "you can't get fooled again", to quote Dear Leader's immortal words.
Additionally, Cheney kept hammering K/E on their voting record: the $87 billion, the defunding of weapons systems, increased taxes, etc. He kept saying "The record indicates otherwise..." That's another powerful method because, here again, he knows that the average voter is not going to go check the record and look at the votes, etc. But he does know that the average voter will hear him make the assertion and think "Well, if he says the record backs it up, he wouldn't make such an obvious lie..."
The only rebuttal that Edwards made was "He wanted to kill some of the same weapons systems", which was good. But he never mentioned the fact that Bush threatened to veto the very same $87 billion package that Kerry voted against, never mentioned Cheney's support for a gas tax, etc. In other words, he only minimally covered the B/C record.
Therefore, if I'm watching this as the average, underinformed and undermotivated American citizen, I have to say Cheney won (though I don't think by much).
Mostly
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
