Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
VP Debate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] I'll probbaly have more to say in the morning. But I'm writing this now without having listened to any of the spin (having spent the night watching the old episodes of SNL celebrity Jeopardy online). It was a vastly improved performance for the Republicans. I'm in agreement with Jay on a few of those questions. They sounded a little too much like an HR director asking the candidates, "If you could be one part of a bike, what would it be?" But the questions were much better balanced this time in terms of time spent reviewing Bush's record versus time spent figuring out what Kerry would do differently in the next term. I thought the first debate should have focused more on foreign policy issues to come, not simply a plebiscite on the past 4 years' policy. What I liked most was the two going at each other there for about 60 seconds during foreign policy period over who was lying on Iraq. I wish these debates were longer. I would have loved to really see them go at it. I know a rundown of the dossier on Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and Saddam's cooperation with known terrorist groups is detailed, but I wonder how many people are taking the time to research that. It makes me long for Lincoln-Douglas length debates. An hour to each side, followed by half hour rebuttals. And questions from the candidates to each other. After two debates I realize how important those are to a good dogfight. Edwards might have blown a chance for a runaway emotional heartwrencher by not describing the extent of that pool drain case more (it's an utterly gruesome example). Then again, it might have been too disgusting for a VP debate. On the other hand, Cheney blew an opportunity to go after a lot of Edwards's other cases that weren't anywhere near as meritorious. I would have expected him to have been briefed on them since there's a lot of faulty science behind some of his cases. Tort reform had to be done in only 10 minutes. It just doesn't do a topic that complicated justice. (No pun intended.) The only possible zinger I saw was Cheney hitting Edwards hard over his attendance record in the Senate. I knew it was bad before, but I had no idea this was the first time they had met. But the moment still did not compare to Reagan's not making Mondale's youth and inexperience an issue in the 1984 campaign or Benson's You're No Jack Kennedy. The candidates probably connected better with viewers depending on whether the issue was a "mommy party" issue or a "daddy party" issue. But the topics were evenly divided, so no advantage to either. Overall, I would have scored the debate as Cheney by a hair, just like Kerry in the first. There were a few solid hits by both sides, no knockouts, and expectations of the Friday debate serving as a tie-breaker just increased. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3