The final debate is over, and we are left with spin doctors and campaign speeches to help us decide who should be the next president.
Thursday night's theme could be, "But Iraq IS a domestic issue!" Although the debate was to be devoted to Domestic Issues, the candidates were more animated when given the opportunity to discuss foreign policy and the war in Iraq.
How did the candidates look?
Both candidates appeared relaxed and confident, especially President Bush. At times John Kerry looked as if he was having the time of his life. Both candidates appeared well-prepared, and unruffled when challenged by the opposing candidate. Both candidates made some mistakes in "facts", but not many, and when debating without notes it is impressive when there are so few mistakes made.
Who won the debate?
Well, even the Republicans are conceding that Kerry has gained an advantage. As Ralph Reed told John Stewart on The Daily Show, John Kerry is a formidable debater. He debated in college, and his debate coach at Yale said he was one of the top five best debaters he had ever seen or coached. So no wonder he looked like he was enjoying himself -- John Kerry loves to debate. He looked and sounded presidential. He was effective in presenting specific strategies for addressing and dealing with the present problems facing the country.
President Bush stayed on message, as he has in previous debates. The president's main message is to trust him to do the right thing. He also hammered home his commitment to education as the key to the problems that face the nation. He spoke like someone who understands from experience the job of the president, and he projected the warmth and congeniality that gained him a reputation for being a uniter when he was governor of Texas.
Even so, the edge went to John Kerry, who had more substance to his statements, and never avoided a question.
What mistakes were made?
Both candidates had the usual factual inaccuracies (although none as good as Vice President Cheney recommending factcheck.com, an ad site originating in the Cayman Islands, as a source for accurate information instead of factcheck.org), but more than that, they made a couple of strategic errors. President Bush evaded a direct question about abortion rights, giving Sen. Kerry the opportunity to point that out. When asked about what he would say to someone who was laid off because of outsourcing, his reply was to hand the person some money to go to a local community college to gain the skills to look for a new job. It lacked compassion, and adhered to the erroneous assumption that people who are outsourced are minimum wage earners with no training.
Senator Kerry cited Vice President Cheney's daughter, who happens to be a lesbian as well as the vice president's campaign manager, when talking about gay marriage. The post-debate furor over that remark has focused attention on the ire of the Cheneys and diverting attention from Senator Kerry's plans.
Bob Shieffer lobbed the candidates a couple of softball questions. His question about the strong women in the lives of the two men prompted a warm, sweet account by the president of love at first sight when he met his wife, and a joke about marrying up from the usually serious Kerry. It was heartening to see that both men are, like the rest of us, more than their jobs, but fathers and husbands.
So now we count down to the election. As the spin masters go into high gear it is important to remember that the platforms of each candidate, and the substance of the debates, should weigh heavily into which candidate to choose. Both men are strongly committed to their ideals, and there is a clear difference between them.
Most importantly, choose and vote.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Who Let The Dogs Out? The Cheney/Edwards Debate
The attack dogs were worked up to a lather last night as Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) went at each other like chained Rottweilers.
Characterized by WFAN radio personality Don Imus as a duel between "Dr. Death and the Breck Girl," the debate was punctuated with heated exchanges, counter-rebuttals and claims of distortion by both parties.
Unlike the gentlemanly presidential debate that clearly laid out what each candidate stood for and believed in, the vice presidential debate was an exercise in redundancy as the debaters circled around the same topics again and again much like attack dogs on a chain.
Was there a winner?
Well, to give the vice president his due, he was far more clear and concise than his opponent. Of course, it is easy to be clear when you are repeating the same assertions over and over no matter what the question. But that doesn't mean that Cheney didn't have his moments.
Particularly memorable was his line about Edward not showing up for Senate votes. Cheney said something to the affect of "I am the president of the Senate and have been there almost every Tuesday. Senator, the first time I met you was when you walked on stage this evening."
Unfortunately for the vice president, that's not true, since there is video showing them shaking hands at a National Prayer Breakfast, and later being thanked by name by the vice president. However, it doesn't negate the fact that the senator has been pretty busy running for office.
In spite of his youthful demeanor and his high-speed zooming from one topic to the next, Edwards proved himself a tough opponent. He never let a single assertion go unchallenged or unexplained and was well versed on facts.
He also had his moment when in true litagational style he backed Cheney into a corner on the question of an amendment to abolish gay marriage. By framing it totally in the context of a compliment to Cheney's family about his gay daughter, he left the vice president with only one reply: "Thank you."
Besides the often sharp rebuttals and character slams, we found the hand gestures of both candidates distracting. Edwards combined the Clintonesque pointing with a closed hand with other restless movements. Cheney continually wrang his hands in a way that makes us think of, well, the elderly. Didn't their handlers warn them about this? We never thought that Kerry's chopping and Bush's palm slapping would look restful by comparison.
Both candidates had their share of distortions -- never call them lies in politics!
For instance, Edwards claimed that the cost of war is over $200 billion when it hasn't yet reached that amount, and Cheney inflated the number of small businesses that will be affected if the tax cuts are rolled back.
In 2000, Cheney and then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman gave such an intelligent, gentlemanly and mature debate that the entire country asked why they weren't at the top of their respective tickets. We at The Thinking Woman have no concerns that those sentiments will be repeated after this year's debate.
A source for analyzing the factual errors in last night's debate can be found in the American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/
Characterized by WFAN radio personality Don Imus as a duel between "Dr. Death and the Breck Girl," the debate was punctuated with heated exchanges, counter-rebuttals and claims of distortion by both parties.
Unlike the gentlemanly presidential debate that clearly laid out what each candidate stood for and believed in, the vice presidential debate was an exercise in redundancy as the debaters circled around the same topics again and again much like attack dogs on a chain.
Was there a winner?
Well, to give the vice president his due, he was far more clear and concise than his opponent. Of course, it is easy to be clear when you are repeating the same assertions over and over no matter what the question. But that doesn't mean that Cheney didn't have his moments.
Particularly memorable was his line about Edward not showing up for Senate votes. Cheney said something to the affect of "I am the president of the Senate and have been there almost every Tuesday. Senator, the first time I met you was when you walked on stage this evening."
Unfortunately for the vice president, that's not true, since there is video showing them shaking hands at a National Prayer Breakfast, and later being thanked by name by the vice president. However, it doesn't negate the fact that the senator has been pretty busy running for office.
In spite of his youthful demeanor and his high-speed zooming from one topic to the next, Edwards proved himself a tough opponent. He never let a single assertion go unchallenged or unexplained and was well versed on facts.
He also had his moment when in true litagational style he backed Cheney into a corner on the question of an amendment to abolish gay marriage. By framing it totally in the context of a compliment to Cheney's family about his gay daughter, he left the vice president with only one reply: "Thank you."
Besides the often sharp rebuttals and character slams, we found the hand gestures of both candidates distracting. Edwards combined the Clintonesque pointing with a closed hand with other restless movements. Cheney continually wrang his hands in a way that makes us think of, well, the elderly. Didn't their handlers warn them about this? We never thought that Kerry's chopping and Bush's palm slapping would look restful by comparison.
Both candidates had their share of distortions -- never call them lies in politics!
For instance, Edwards claimed that the cost of war is over $200 billion when it hasn't yet reached that amount, and Cheney inflated the number of small businesses that will be affected if the tax cuts are rolled back.
In 2000, Cheney and then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman gave such an intelligent, gentlemanly and mature debate that the entire country asked why they weren't at the top of their respective tickets. We at The Thinking Woman have no concerns that those sentiments will be repeated after this year's debate.
A source for analyzing the factual errors in last night's debate can be found in the American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/
Monday, October 04, 2004
Bush's Home Town Newspaper Endorses Kerry
It has come to the attention of The Thinking Woman, through The Capital Times, an on-line newspaper at madison.com, that the Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
Why is this extraordinary? The Iconoclast is the newspaper in President George W. Bush's home town of Crawford, Texas.
While presidents are not always popular in their home towns, it seems remarkable that a newspaper that heartily endorsed the president during the 2000 campaign and strongly supported his bid to go to Iraq, would decided to instead to not even reluctantly but enthusiastically endorse his opponent.
While mentioning the president's foreign policy, the Iconoclast focuses on economic issues -- Medicare, Social Security, job outsourcing and overtime pay to name just a few. The editorial accuses the president of "duping" the American people, and pursuing an agenda that was not part of his campaign platform.
While newspaper endorsements should always be considered just one piece of the decision process in an election, a home town's defection should never be taken lightly.
To read the Iconoclast's entire editorial: http://http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=11655&ntpid=1
Why is this extraordinary? The Iconoclast is the newspaper in President George W. Bush's home town of Crawford, Texas.
While presidents are not always popular in their home towns, it seems remarkable that a newspaper that heartily endorsed the president during the 2000 campaign and strongly supported his bid to go to Iraq, would decided to instead to not even reluctantly but enthusiastically endorse his opponent.
While mentioning the president's foreign policy, the Iconoclast focuses on economic issues -- Medicare, Social Security, job outsourcing and overtime pay to name just a few. The editorial accuses the president of "duping" the American people, and pursuing an agenda that was not part of his campaign platform.
While newspaper endorsements should always be considered just one piece of the decision process in an election, a home town's defection should never be taken lightly.
To read the Iconoclast's entire editorial: http://http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=11655&ntpid=1
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Who Won the First Debate?
When we started The Thinking Woman our primary goal was to cut through the spin and the media hype so that women could get a clear picture of what is happening in politics, the media and the world in general.
That mission is never more important than now, when our presidential candidates have on their game faces and their people are furiously spinning to suit their own ends. We don't blame them for this, it's what politicians do. But we're not politicians and we don't have to listen to what the pundits tell us. Neither should you.
Before we examine the first 2004 presidential debate, we'd like to make a suggestion. Watch the debates on C-SPAN where you'll see both candidates on a split screen with no network commentator telling you what you already heard in plain English. Don't listen to the network news or any commentators, not even if you swear by Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh.
Instead, decide for yourself.
(If you really need to watch something, watch Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Comedy Central. The cast's wisecracking is pretty bipartisan. But then, that's just our opinion.)
What did we think of the debate? We'd have to say that both candidates presented themselves well and in a way that is appealing to their core constituencies.
The positives
President George W. Bush appeared firm and resolute, unyielding yet humble and even exhausted by the heavy burden the fight against terrorism has laid on his shoulders. He was a gentleman at all times and even softened Kerry up by complimenting his daughters and getting the senator to show his more human side.
Senator John Kerry appeared intelligent, firm and decisive. He showed himself to be a thinking man, well in touch with the facts, versed in diplomacy and ready to do whatever it takes to fight the war on terrorism. He never went over the line set by President Bush and graciously gave a touching tribute to the First Lady.
The negatives
Bush needed to pause often to collect his thoughts and occasionally appeared uncomfortable. Kerry came off as smug a few times and his long sentences at the beginning had us squirming in our seats. But basically, we felt these flaws were small and didn't affect the tone of the debate, which was substantive.
So substantive in fact, that we think that the American people got a clear and positive choice between the two candidates.
The differences
Both men want to bring our troops home, both men want to protect our country from terrorists and both men want to see an end to nuclear proliferation.
Bush presented a policy of staying the course and continuing the fight.
Kerry outlined proposals to bring in European allies and get our troops out of Iraq withing six months.
Bush sees Vladimir Putin of Russia as an ally. Kerry does not.
Bush sees China as an ally in controlling North Korea. Kerry does not.
Kerry sees the United Nations as a potential tool to eventual peace. Bush does not.
And Kerry would make modifications to the Patriot Act, where Bush would not.
The choice
Bush: Stand strong and go it alone to get the job done right.
Kerry: Build consensus and draw in allies to share the burden and improve America's relationship with the world.
Who you think will make a better president is up to you. We think you now have a clear choice.
So who won Thursday night's debate?
Isn't it obvious?
The American people won.
That mission is never more important than now, when our presidential candidates have on their game faces and their people are furiously spinning to suit their own ends. We don't blame them for this, it's what politicians do. But we're not politicians and we don't have to listen to what the pundits tell us. Neither should you.
Before we examine the first 2004 presidential debate, we'd like to make a suggestion. Watch the debates on C-SPAN where you'll see both candidates on a split screen with no network commentator telling you what you already heard in plain English. Don't listen to the network news or any commentators, not even if you swear by Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh.
Instead, decide for yourself.
(If you really need to watch something, watch Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Comedy Central. The cast's wisecracking is pretty bipartisan. But then, that's just our opinion.)
What did we think of the debate? We'd have to say that both candidates presented themselves well and in a way that is appealing to their core constituencies.
The positives
President George W. Bush appeared firm and resolute, unyielding yet humble and even exhausted by the heavy burden the fight against terrorism has laid on his shoulders. He was a gentleman at all times and even softened Kerry up by complimenting his daughters and getting the senator to show his more human side.
Senator John Kerry appeared intelligent, firm and decisive. He showed himself to be a thinking man, well in touch with the facts, versed in diplomacy and ready to do whatever it takes to fight the war on terrorism. He never went over the line set by President Bush and graciously gave a touching tribute to the First Lady.
The negatives
Bush needed to pause often to collect his thoughts and occasionally appeared uncomfortable. Kerry came off as smug a few times and his long sentences at the beginning had us squirming in our seats. But basically, we felt these flaws were small and didn't affect the tone of the debate, which was substantive.
So substantive in fact, that we think that the American people got a clear and positive choice between the two candidates.
The differences
Both men want to bring our troops home, both men want to protect our country from terrorists and both men want to see an end to nuclear proliferation.
Bush presented a policy of staying the course and continuing the fight.
Kerry outlined proposals to bring in European allies and get our troops out of Iraq withing six months.
Bush sees Vladimir Putin of Russia as an ally. Kerry does not.
Bush sees China as an ally in controlling North Korea. Kerry does not.
Kerry sees the United Nations as a potential tool to eventual peace. Bush does not.
And Kerry would make modifications to the Patriot Act, where Bush would not.
The choice
Bush: Stand strong and go it alone to get the job done right.
Kerry: Build consensus and draw in allies to share the burden and improve America's relationship with the world.
Who you think will make a better president is up to you. We think you now have a clear choice.
So who won Thursday night's debate?
Isn't it obvious?
The American people won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)