Good Debate, but why didn't he hit Cheney with more facts?

[ohio_dem_52186]

Edwards did a good job, but I was disapointed in two aspects:

1) The debate was in Ohio. The Republican led Ohio General Assembly released a report recently saying No Child Left Behind will cost the state $1.4 billion more than Bush has provided. That tied right in to the whole unfunded mandate claim.

2) The Congresional Budgetary Office did a study on Bush's tax cuts that shows, clear as day, that the tax cuts go to the rich and the middle class get screwed. Saying that the Republican led committee chaired by one of Bush's colleagues found that over 67% of the tax cut went to the top 20% and 2% to the bottom 20% would have an impact.

I would think that in both of these cases, citing a public record document that clearly shows your point would be prefered to assertions. (We know the assertions are true, but we're not the ones the debate is for.)

Do you think this is strategy, a missed opportunity, or a lack of knoweledge?

If strategy, what the hell kind of strategy is it???

If it is a lack of knoweledge, how can we let the Kerry campaign know that these things exist?

I was just waiting for Edwards to throw this in Cheney's face, I am still waiting... The set up was perfect for both of these facts.

I have those documemnts linked on my page if anybody is interested in them (http://getthefacts.atspace.com/)

[soothsayer]

1. Didn't want to outshine Kerry maybe? dunno. I think there was lots more

that could have been said, too, but maybe it's hard to work everything into those coupla' minutes they had.

[ohio_dem_52186]

2. Yes, time is certainly not out your side in these things but

if he had it ready to go and slightly rehearsed, it could have made it in I think.

Your point on outshining Kerry is valid, I suppose maybe they want Kerry to "bring out the big guns" in the next debate.

Still, I think better to say something twice, especialy when you've got a captive TV audiance that might not be there to hear it the second time.

[soothsayer]

5. yeah----he could have fit a WHOLE lot of BFEE crimes and mistakes in

I wonder if they get (lame) advice about only introducing X amount of new topics cuz of people's attention spans or whatnot. The same way new books are only supposed to contain 10% new material, or else they're too shocking or something.

[ohio_dem_52186]

11. Could be. Maybe they want to outline one thing at a time to

for the same reasons.

I think they are underestimating the public. But then again, 50% of the public supports Bush...

[wadestock]

17. The theory of "outshining" applies to Bush/Cheney only

When you have 2 intelligent people who are secure in their intelligence...then you don't have to worry about such things...and that comes through loud and clear with Kerry/Edwards. You have to appreciate that quality about this matchup...and I think it sifts through to the average person too.

But with Bush/Cheney....the problem they have is having Cheney look now like the REAL president. If the dems had the inherent sleeze that the Repukes did and their no holds barred demented character assassination tactics...they'd be hammering that point home over and over....ie that Bush is the front man for the real corporate workings being implemented by Cheney et al.

But as you can see...the media has quickly fallen into the mentally that it was a "draw". The fact that we even rate these debates as win, lose, or draw shouts loudly of the success the repukes have had dumming down America, infiltrating the media with bad business tactics, and being able to sell garbage at a premium.

[Alpharetta]

3. No mention of Cheney's secret Energy Task Force

with Enron who helped fix prices before California's blackouts, subsequent plant shutdowns and budget crisis.

[ohio_dem_52186]

4. That is a good one too. I bet it will come up in a later debate

when they talk about energy issues. Even at that, the Bushies can maybe wave their magic wand at that and make it go away.

I think that the tax issue and the lack of funding are so well documented that there is little way to refute it. But then again, they've proven that wrong in the past...

[w4rma]

6. Because he had to spend most of his time countering Cheney's lies

He only had so much time to use and there is enough information out there that Edwards' had to draw from to fill libraries, so it's likely that alot of folks didn't get their pet issue with this misadministration talked about.

[irancontra]

8. good point

he HAD to use alot of the time to counter the previous lies.

[ohio_dem_52186]

9. Yes, he did have to do a lot of damage control, but

these facts I mention were part of what he was doing damage control on.

To the uninformed, Bush-whacked voter, I think that when they hear Edwards claim something and then hear Cheney claim something it kind of cancels out. If Edwards, instead, counters Cheney's attack with a cited fact in a truly non-biased source available to the public, I think that is a much stronger counter.

What do you think?

[wadestock]

7. There was way TOO MUCH facts for the average American

Edwards hit on key issues and reinforced significant things....

1. Thought he did well to debunk the flip flop bullcrap.

2. Absolutely ripped Cheney on Halliburton, the fact that they are under investigation...not having money put on hold, etc....devastating in my opinion. Portrays Cheney as an "Enron like" CEO. My opinion after the debate was RIGHT ON Ann Richards when she said...geeze....I'm glad I'm not working for THAT guy!

3. Did overall great job of supporting Kerry, not repeating many of his "greatest hits" which went even throughout recent tours.

4. In comparison to other prior VP debates, Edward's has to be one of the best overall synopses of all time....makes Lieberman looks pathetic by contrast.

5. Reasonable good on the war. This is the area I would have fortified with the notion that the world may look significantly different IN 4 YEARS if Bush/Cheney continues. In other words...if you see what they're doing now....what's to prevent this "rush to war" from leading us down uncertain and shaky paths in the future. What about the draft? The Kerry/Edwards approach should have been clearer in this respect so that people can really imagine the difference. They get confused thinking about it just in 6 months to the future terms. Kerry wants more troops....perhaps Bush might put more troops in too. People are confused about whether an alliance can be built...and the average person is not so imaginative when it comes to what is possible with good foreign policy.

But in terms of getting to the core of the disgrace and arrogance of this admin....it should have been thrown on the table that we just can't trust these guys to control their "world wide ambitions" in the future. The Kerry/Edwards approach should have been crystal clear in these regards...

#1 - We will win the peace....not necessarily fall on our sword to create democracy in Iraq....OR IN THE REGION.

#2 - We will work back to ensure a vital volunteer army. We will not overextend our military into the future...with greater ambitions in the region....and risk the necessity of a draft.

Put it in these terms....and people would really start to get a quirky feeling in the pit of their stomach.

[ohio_dem_52186]

10. Yes, I believe he did a good job on those too. But that is because

I know (as you do) that it is true.

A lot of people glaze over on the Haliburton stuff because there is no definitive clearly non-partisan info out there. (That I know of...) Cheney can counter this by simply telling half truths.

I think he did hammer the war home pretty good.

On the issue of Education, Edwards good have used more substance besides just saying it was underfunded. We've been saying it (and it's been true) for a long time. I feel they need to ramp it up a notch and hit Bush with some facts.

Same on tax cuts. Citing the facts will make people go, wow...

I guess, I worry that to the uninformed undecideds out there Edwards may sound just like Cheney. Full of rhetoric.

[cheezus]

12. exactly. Edwards knows how to connect with the Average guy

Cheny just lost people when he was wonkishly rambling on.

[ohio_dem_52186]

13. I disagree on "too many facts". I think that the average person

can digest all the facts you can throw at them (within reason...)

The problem people have is sorting out all of the "facts". People are skeptical of politicians because they do always tell their side of the story.

Without hard, cold, unfinching facts (with the source named) the underlying truth gets lost in the back-and-forth of the debate.

People are smart, they just don't have the time to track down the truth. The media, which should serve this function, does not.

[wadestock]

19. I should clarify....too many back and forth bad and good facts....

America has been dumbed down....there's no question about that....literally brainwashed to look for the those tell tale signs in the debates that would be the "most memorable".

Problem is...they haven't realized that just because a person thinks back and might remember certain impressionable moments years later....this has NOTHING to do with trying to appreciate what's going on NOW!!!!!

The media has successfully dumbed down our general appreciation for the debates with this tactic plus the overall win, lose, or draw mentality.
Geeze...they played over and over this week these memorable impressionable events as if they were the only things to look for.

Yes...American's can "get it"...but the Repukes have simply no shame...for any fact, they'll throw out a lie....so it gets into a back and forth that is difficult to decipher. I watch my wife as a barometer in such things...and she gets turned off very quickly.

Put together a discovery channel or history channel expose on a particular subject and she'll embellish the whole set of facts better than I can...but get into a "pissing contest" ....and she gets mentally turned off.

[rlev1223]

14. a little too rehearsed a nd on message

I thought Edwards would have been better if he slammed Cheney down more conversationally each time he lied, but he seemed intent, at least regarding the war, on repeating campaign bites...made him seemed a bit
programmed, IMO.

[ohio_dem_52186]

15. They call that resonating I guess... But old material gets stale.

[ohio_dem_52186]

16. Clarification - Edwards did a good job at hitting him with the truth, but

there is a difference between "the truth" and "the facts".

"The facts" are what you base "the truth" on. During the debate on these topics, Edwards had plenty of "the truth" to say in response to Cheney's version of "the truth" (a.k.a. "the lies").

But without credible, cited facts to support "the truth" a uninformed person will not be able to discern Edwards "truth" from Cheney's "truth". If left with this decision, I hope people trust Sen. Edwards. But I don't think we can risk leaving it to chance...

You need to give people reason to beleive you, because both sides say the opposite thing. Both can't be right at the same time.

[txindy]

18. Time

There wasn't enough time to hit Dick with straight facts, plus, if he had done that, the *ies would have said that he was just an out-of-touch wonk. He did very well, as it is. Cheney dodged almost everything or just ignored questions. That stood out, IMHO.

[ohio_dem_52186]

22. Time is definitely a factor in this. Here is what I suggest:

Instead of saying this:

------
"Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they‘re making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that‘s right. John Kerry and I do not.

We don‘t just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."
-----

Replace it with a something like this:

-----
"Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place...

... The Republican led Congressional Budgetary Office issued a report this summer on the tax cut package, and the top 20% income earners got 70% of the President's tax cut package. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% got less than 5%. The upper 20% got the largest rate drop as well.

The President says says "those with the greatest need" got the greatest help; the facts say otherwise.
----

Sure, it cuts out a reference to them screwing over the troops, but that was already covered amply. Plus, will an undecided person take him for his word when Cheney is saying the opposite?

[leftofthedial]

20. facts hell!

I think he should have just jumped up in the middle of a quiet stretch and yelled, "BOOOOGABOOOOGABOOOOOGA!"

Let's give that old pacemaker AND the current US helathcare system a good test, shall we?

[ohio_dem_52186]

21. Cheney said we had to consider what would happen if the President

were to die in office.

Given his health history, maybe we should worry more about who's next in line after Cheney?

[sandnsea]

23. Cleveland 30% unemployment rate

50% of children in poverty. My god, that should be 6 inch headlines all over the country. I had NO IDEA. How many more cities are in this kind of trouble?

[ohio_dem_52186]

24. You think it would make news in Ohio's capital...

The debate article in the Columbus Dispatch chose not to include that figure...

http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/06/20041006-A1-00.html

But then again, here is how they paint the candidates:

Cheney the cool chairman of the board arguing to stay the course, Edwards the flamboyant trial attorney pleading his case for change to a national jury

Flamboyant? Whatever...

[sandnsea]

25. I emailed the writer

Is he fair at all? Maybe the idea of a Pulitzer will get to him, an article about something noboody in the country knows anything about. This is just beyond frightening to me, 30% unemployment in any American city ought to send chills down people's spines.

[ohio_dem_52186]

28. I don't know anything about that writer's slant. I think I'll bug him too.

[oldtime dfl_er]

26. He knew the truth would come out

I think Edwards chose (wisely) not to bother with attempting to refute the two most blatant lies ("I never met you" and "I never made that connection") because he knew that the very least the press would do after would be to check these two very basic and checkable lies. I thought I saw a glint in John's eye, when these lies came out of old man Potter's mouth, a glint of knowing. He instead chose to spend his alloted time refuting the more subtle lies, knowing the others were so obvious. It also looked gracious, in my biased opinion.

[ohio_dem_52186]

27. That is a good point. It did seem like he "stimulated" the media

to go after some of this stuff. When things make it into the mainstream media I suppose it is probably perceived as more reliable to Joe/Jane Undecided.

I like your thoughts on this, that makes some sense.

The media is not jumping all over the tax issue or the failure of No Child Left Behind. Do you think Kerry will take it to Bush a little harder in the next debate?