VP debate, part Deux

I was much more impressed with this debate, there were actually numbers and issues discussed. A few of the standouts I have are listed below.

1. Funny item – Did anyone notice that Kerry insinuated that Bush didn’t know who the enemy was because he kept mixing up the names of countries and people? I couldn’t even keep count of how many times Edwards mixed up Iran and Iraq, and Saddam and Osama. Just too funny.
2. Same old flip flop song and dance, this time on both sides. Stop already!
3. No Plan for the Peace. I still don’t know what this means. The plan Edwards outlined for the peace was essentially what is currently happening, he just changed a couple of methods (might or might not work better) which have the same net effect (in a goal sense). There was nothing that outlined anything more than train the people in Iraq to defend themselves, Hold elections, and Rebuild Iraq. Isn’t that what is going on now?
4. Getting tired of the not giving weapons inspectors time. Maybe there are some voting age high school kids out there in the swing vote crowd that Kerry/Edwards are aiming to sway. Kids who do not remember the on again off again UN inspections debacle in Iraq. Here is an interesting link full of reports with a 4 year span.
5. I really liked the tort reform discussion. Edwards had an interesting idea for tort reform, by making the attorneys pay for frivolous lawsuits, and the three strikes policy was very interesting. I’ve heard very similar measures dismissed on the grounds that it would make it too difficult for the poor to file a lawsuit, but we will see. On the surface I like the Cheney limits punitive damages and % cut to attorney’s view, but the punitive damages are sometimes the only way to touch a large corporation enough to effect change. Especially considering the weak powers given to our Consumer Product Safety Commission. But I really like that fact that the parties are talking about it.
6. I really want some tax reform discussion, Bush mentioned it not too long back, but seems to have been silent on the subject since. I’m disappointed.
7. Message to both parties, why is it that nobody seems concerned about redistribution of wealth (via taxes) from single people to families? I’m still waiting to hear a reason why I as a single person should pay higher tax percentage as compared to someone with a family. I am using less government resource, yet paying more than my share for the government resource that is used by the children of the person with the family. Do not give me the argument that we need more kids as future source of tax flow, so we need to convince people to have them, because we seem to have plenty enough to let a bunch of them die from malnutrition and lack of good health care every year.
8. Cheney made a very good point about S-Corporation people being considered wealthy in the Edward’s plan.
9. I’m really waiting details on how Edwards plans to fund universal coverage with the congressional health care plan, that was promised.
10. Edwards proudly displayed his “It’s the average American Joe vs. big evil corporate business (I believe he mentioned his old nemeses: insurance companies, drug companies, etc…)” colors in the debate. I’m guessing this was pandering to the middle class, because you cannot foster a pro business environment with this kind of an attitude toward business.
11. Since Edwards was off in a tear on the administration not forcing pricing down on prescription drugs why didn’t he mention the details of why. Including the reasoning that the drug companies would end up raising rates on everyone else who had private coverage if they had to give up money for welfare drugs.
12. Why would you legalize import of Canadian drugs? The gray market works fine, and I believe you also largely give up your right to sue the company if you buy the goods on the gray market (Brent can you help on this assumption?), which keeps the cost of drugs down.

BTW in the case of winners, I think it was close to a tie. I have far more respect for Cheney than I do for Edwards, turned in an overall better performance on the ever critical facial expression category. I really feel that Cheney is a business person who understands economics and political issues. I might not agree with him on many things, but I do at least think he understands the complexity of what he is discussing. Everything said and done, I feel I might could be excited about the election if these were the two Presidential candidates. Unfortunately they have had their 88.5 minutes in the sun. Hopefully the next two debates (two right?) will be better than the first Bush/Kerry.

If you were watching CNN after the debate. They cut to Mary Beth Cahill (sp?) and asked her to name a meaningful piece of legislation that Edwards had written, or participated in, she danced in a circle and never even came close to discussing Edwards, or his time in office. Then the announcer (Wolf I believe) said the same question again (noting that she hadn’t answered yet) and she said exactly the same thing… Just too funny… If you don’t know his record, just say so… It really looks bad when you avoid the question twice in a row. I bet she is better prepared next time.

Ok, I’m sure I’ve got more but I’m too worn out, and need to get back to work (lunch is over)…

I think these fact checkers are not completely objective (you will note some differences between the facts they decide to look up and the support they use, but they mostly agree). Here are CNN and the elusive FactCheck.org.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 6th, 2004 at 1:29 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.