Post Debate Thoughts
Well, see Dick and John run.
Again like the last debate, I think this debate served its purpose. That being, less to have a winner and more to define the differences between the candidates.
I thought that Edwards slipped more on the "facts" and dodged and wriggled more than Cheney, but hey that's because my glasses are tinted the "right" colour. I'd imagine my counterpart with a "left leaning tilt", would see it the other way. From where I stand, the Kerry/Edwards ticket proposes a lot of new spending with no way to support it.
Then there's the war. Well, the difference is clear. Who is the war against? If you pick the muslim hiding in tent "A/Q" (al-Qaeda). You vote for K/E. If you decide to take all the Islamic terrorists in all their little tents, safe-houses, tanks, and camps .... then you vote Bush/Cheney.
Edwards repeated several times the query, "Why are we in Iraq? They didn't attack us?". This just points out the difference previusly mentioned. If the only purpose of the war is to fight and extract our pound of flesh from those who perpetrated 9/11.... Well, we don't have that as a reason for going to Iraq. If on the other hand, we are trying to alter the worlds dynamic and stop terror from being such a cheap and easy alternative to a war fighting against other soldiers and prefer to attack elementary school childern and other nasty vicious civillians..... Well, then there are plenty of reasons for going into Iraq. Now, Edwards didn't quite manage to slip out of the knot he and Kerry have tied themselves in, with what them publicly debating with themselves just how they felt about this issue. But it seems clear, for the next month or so, they are on the side of the narrow al-Qaeda conflict. See this for my ideas why they landed where they did.
I also predict that the blogosphere is going be redolent with the sound of fact checking from near to far, poring over the claims made by both sides. I wonder if anyone will keep a tally?
Again like the last debate, I think this debate served its purpose. That being, less to have a winner and more to define the differences between the candidates.
I thought that Edwards slipped more on the "facts" and dodged and wriggled more than Cheney, but hey that's because my glasses are tinted the "right" colour. I'd imagine my counterpart with a "left leaning tilt", would see it the other way. From where I stand, the Kerry/Edwards ticket proposes a lot of new spending with no way to support it.
Then there's the war. Well, the difference is clear. Who is the war against? If you pick the muslim hiding in tent "A/Q" (al-Qaeda). You vote for K/E. If you decide to take all the Islamic terrorists in all their little tents, safe-houses, tanks, and camps .... then you vote Bush/Cheney.
Edwards repeated several times the query, "Why are we in Iraq? They didn't attack us?". This just points out the difference previusly mentioned. If the only purpose of the war is to fight and extract our pound of flesh from those who perpetrated 9/11.... Well, we don't have that as a reason for going to Iraq. If on the other hand, we are trying to alter the worlds dynamic and stop terror from being such a cheap and easy alternative to a war fighting against other soldiers and prefer to attack elementary school childern and other nasty vicious civillians..... Well, then there are plenty of reasons for going into Iraq. Now, Edwards didn't quite manage to slip out of the knot he and Kerry have tied themselves in, with what them publicly debating with themselves just how they felt about this issue. But it seems clear, for the next month or so, they are on the side of the narrow al-Qaeda conflict. See this for my ideas why they landed where they did.
I also predict that the blogosphere is going be redolent with the sound of fact checking from near to far, poring over the claims made by both sides. I wonder if anyone will keep a tally?
posted by Mark at 10/05/2004 09:56:00 PM
<< Home