Biden did better than the President. But that's to be expected. Biden's the better man. We'll have to wait a bit to see how it played with voters, but there's no doubt in my mind he did better than President Obama did.
Of course, we'll also have to see how many people watched it, and how much they like people interrupting and yelling. Maybe that sells. We'll see soon enough.
UPDATE: A CNN undecided voter interview.
The lady is from Virginia, which might explain her good sense.
I voted a day before the first debate, so my bias is quite complete. That said - I thought Biden came across as more rude, but Ryan as more evasive, which disappointed me.
ReplyDeleteI doubt rudeness hurts a politician. Evasiveness may, if others saw it as you did.
ReplyDeleteI have not voted.
Biden was beyond rude. Enough so to merit, in other circumstances, a whisper to straighten up, or...
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I saw Ryan conduct himself with composure, restraint, and substantive comments, but I'd not agree on evasive.
I'll admit that approximately one hour into the debate I went into the kitchen to nuke a couple of burritos,so I'll ask you Joseph if you would point me towards the evasion you saw on Ryan's part?
Asked about whether he'd name specific "loopholes" they'd close - he ought to have included a simple, "No, I'm not telling you which ones" - and then said, "And the reason why I'm not is because we have $x worth on the table, and want to leave Congress room to negotiate that with us."
ReplyDeleteOn Syria, he'd been asked what the Romney administration would do, and he instead only complained about what the Obama administration hadn't done. Well, he did say Romney wouldn't put troops on the ground. And he mentioned a rebel faction, but didn't give a nice, clear - "We would give weapons to this group, the way Reagan armed the Contras." You don't answer "what will you do?" with - "I would have done something different from you in the past..."
Also, he was asked what circumstance would justify -- it was either troops on the ground in Syria or troops past 2014 in Iran -- and he didn't give a circumstance. These things I found evasive.
Candidates in debates are generally bad at answering the question asked; I thought and think still that Romney was the best of these four at it.
I think the funniest moment was near the end, when the moderator asked them to comment on negative ads in the campaign. Each of them took the opportunity to give a two-minute vocal attack ad against the other.
Thanks Joseph...
ReplyDelete"Asked about whether he'd name specific "loopholes" they'd close - he ought to have included a simple, "No, I'm not telling you which ones""
I think I've heard both R's explain, and repeatedly, that you do not show all your cards prior to the actual negotiation... so I have to put that one in the flogging a dead horse column.
"On Syria, he'd been asked what the Romney administration would do, and he instead only complained about what the Obama administration hadn't done. "
Didn't Romney say, and the media report, maybe last week, that Romney, if elected, would provide arms to the rebels? But yes, Ryan could have, should have been more forceful on what an R&R administration would do.
"Also, he was asked what circumstance would justify -- it was either troops on the ground in Syria or troops past 2014 in Iran -- and he didn't give a circumstance. These things I found evasive. "
Fair enough, but that causes me to ask another question. Was it Iran or Afghanistan? //scratches head//
In any event, and perhaps due to my now equating the word evasive with all things Obama, I'd be more inclined to give Ryan a hit for not being adequately prepared on these subjects or maybe not synced up with Romney's position rather than being intentionally evasive which to me implies trying to hide something... Tomato versus tomahto, naked versus nekkid I suppose.
Ah well. My opinion of this debate performance matters little since, come hell or high water, my vote is one for the ABO ticket.
I wonder how the undecideds saw the debate?
Yes, I certainly didn't mean "evasive" in the strong sense of "hiding the truth" - only evading straight answers to straight questions.
ReplyDeleteI'm used to speaking in front of judges who'll drill you if you do that. (You get a chance to do your advocacy, but you'd better answer the question asked in the process. "Do you have a case that says X?" "No, sir, but X is still the right answer and here's why...")
My own vote was already cast also (absentee ballot because I'm still an Alaska resident, though far from there now) - and is quite like your own I'm sure.
Well, according to the station I watched, the "undecideds" being polled came out 48-44 for Ryan. Which surprised me pleasantly.
I'd imagine the courtroom would be less forgiving than a public debate amongst politicos.
ReplyDeleteTo rehash this item, "Asked about whether he'd name specific "loopholes" they'd close -
<snip>
"And the reason why I'm not is because we have $x worth on the table, and want to leave Congress room to negotiate that with us." "
IIRC Ryan did attempt to make that point while smirking Joe made noises and repeatedly interrupted Ryan.
Come to think of it, before I left the room to nuke my burritos, didn't I see Ryan try to explain this point using the historical reference of the Reagan and O'Neil negotiations? That they had to first agree to a framework for the matter at hand and then negotiate the particulars to reach a deal?
It is, and should be. And maybe, just maybe, these fellows know more than I do about what looks good to voters. But it makes me sensitive to people in any format who don't answer the actual question that is asked. (I even got itchy in the first debate when Romney would tell half a minute of anecdote before answering the question.)
ReplyDeleteI took quite a few water breaks myself and may have missed that - there may've been some mention of those names during a mutual talkover. But explaining the answer without giving the answer - still looks evasive.
(My unaided and fallible memory tells me another - a question about the GM bailout; I remember Ryan talking about Romney as a "car guy" but not a nice, simple, "I'm against any bailouts and here's why" or "I'm for that one and here's why" or whatever.)
None of which significantly affects what I want to happen - just the best I can convey of how the men looked to me.
Well Joseph, I think I can safely say that neither of us would be successful should we need to woo the electorate. :)
ReplyDeleteThis old curmudgeon is way past the freshness date for this 24 hour period, so I'm heading for the rack.
In fairness, Vice President Biden evaded questions too: the one that struck me most was his answer to the question, "Do you have a plan to get unemployment to six percent, and how long will it take?" He gave a very long, very aggressive answer that never once touched on anything resembling an answer to that question. It did say a lot about Bush, Republicans, and how horrible it was to be saddled with such a problem as this recession.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised Rep. Ryan didn't begin his reply with, "I gather that means you have no plan."
Perhaps because his address was 232B Glass House Manor...since even he didn't answer the part about "how long it would take."
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree they both did some evading, and some amount of rudeness and interrupting. But I walked away believing Ryan had done more of the former, and Biden more of the latter.
I'm regretfully with Joseph W -- I'm a Ryan fan, but he didn't find a way to make things clear last night. If you're aiming for undecideds at this late date, you've got to break it down into fundamentals. Romney did that better than Ryan did. Of course, Romney also wasn't interrupted 80 times by the moderator and 30 times by his opponent, which helped, but in that crazy, chaotic atmosphere he still needed to find a way to say, "Let's slow down for a second here. The point is . . ." and then make the point in sentences of 15 words or less.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Biden didn't make anything clear either, or at least not about his ticket's plans, if any. He did make clear that he was a blowhard and a buffoon. To judge from the polls and focus groups, that lesson was as clear to undecideds as it was to this partisan viewer.
I liked it when Ryan said, "I realize you've got a lot of lost ground to make up for here, but I think the people would be best served if we spoke one at a time." But the line was nearly lost in the shouting and confusion.
I liked Ryan's self-restraint in not complaining about it more...it's a danger with those tactics; you spend all your time bitching about the other fellow's behavior and you come across looking inferior.
ReplyDelete(Biden made one thing clear anyway - no troops in Afghanistan past 2014.)
I am going to add something on how all four came across personally. While in national elections I mostly vote on ideology -- I'm too much the partisan/extremist to do otherwise -- I do watch these prospective commanders-in-chief to try to divine which I'd like to see in a commander's chair. Where I look for that inner calm and self-control that lets the commander make a rational decision without freezing or panicking at the worst possible moment. I'm not convinced I can divine this quality from watching speeches and debate performances - but the R's gave me the better vibe on that, especially Romney. (One reason I didn't want to see Condoleezza Rice as commander-in-chief is how rattled she looked the first time she appeared after the Israel-Lebanon war broke out in '06...)
Knowledge and intelligence are fine things too - but there's a place for the man who stays up all night in a sweat making sure he has the latest facts. That place is on the commander's staff. (Thus Richard Brookhiser's admonition - "The wise leader should strive to have intellectuals on tap and not be one himself.") (Mind you, Romney also comes across as the most intelligent of the four, which fits his career as well, but that is another story.)
It is true that command is a decisive quality, and one that ultimately has to accept a certain risk of being wrong (coupled with the character that accepts responsibility for having been wrong). Intellectuals sometimes have that quality, but not always.
ReplyDelete