Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

I got the sense that this debate could be the turning point that tilts the nation toward being comfortable with a Kerry White House.

It just took someone who can lay out a case the average person can understand. Kerry has a lot of trouble doing that. Edwards is a genius with the simple phrase. He looked better than Clinton up there. (Though in fairness to Bill, Edwards has lots more material to work with thanks to the shocking and nearly satanic record of the Bushies)

I suspect this debate will have lots of resonance and significance.

It was interesting watching the Republican spin masters after the debate. I do think lying is pathological with them, either that or they live in a mirror parallel universe; good = bad, right = wrong, lies = truth, Orwell must be spinning in his grave (pun intended.) I'm glad to see that it appears most of the public, at least those who retain some critical thinking skills, seem to be able to filter the RNC noise and weigh the evidence. Cheney looked weary, he sounded weary, and he acted weary. I suppose some mistook that for gravitas. Everytime Edwards zinged the administration and Cheney, Cheney would pale and then basically not answer the question or confront the rebuttal. Twist this as they might, I think TeamBush slid a few more notches toward oblivion tonight.

Well this whole thing was aimed at the Undecideds and Independents, so this CBS poll would be good news for the Dems, who may see another bit of a gain. Just seeing Edwards hold his own against Cheney might help a few more people to commit. Meanwhile, a larger flash poll on ABC seems to have broken along party lines, which also helps the Dems by a hair, because (1) people like underdogs, and (2) a hot race increases turnout. So we have the hot hair of an underdog...

To me, they tied on style, but Edwards won on points, although he did not put a dent in the faulty psychological strategy of the war on terror. And Cheney’s denial of his repeated assertions of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may soon prove a big mistake: everybody remembers his statements--he may be the lone holdout in the whole Administration--and there’s even videotape.

The possible psychologies of the Undecideds is interesting. If the campaigns have useful knowledge of them, it remains a close secret, because I can’t find analysis anywhere. I use the plural because there’s probably more than one type of Undecided: (A) the type who doesn’t like the incumbent, but needs assurance about the challenger; (B) the type who wants the most honest character elected, and sees the campaign through; (C) the type who tends to follow the herd and votes for the person that all his/her friends are voting for; and (D) the type who really doesn’t decide until he/she walks into the voting booth, and can be influenced by dirty tricks in the last two days. (If there are other typologies, I would like to hear them.) Anyway, I imagine tonight’s debate may have pulled along some from (A) and (B).

My dilemma is that the real contenders both supported going to war. And, both parties support actions hoping for victory. Neither has shown a plausible plan to get Osama or to win in Iraq.

The other issues (gays, AIDs, stemcells, abortion, taxes, education) are diversions. What's the difference; the one who wins the casting call for "looking like a Cmdr in Chief"?

I guess I'll vote to fire the current administration and change the management as the only option. (Even if firing someone is "hurtful".)

Brad,
as an authority in economical matters, could you please analyse this:

CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses. You do not want to tax them. It's a bad idea to increase the burden on those folks.

Don,
Kerry and Edwards voted for the resolution to give Bush the authority to go to war if certain conditions were met. Even Bush said the authority was necessary to ensure the peace. He claimed that he needed it to force the hand of the UN and put adequate pressure on Saddam. Bush betrayed the trust the Congress placed in him; he always intended to go to war and simply wanted a congressionally-authorized fig leaf.

This is not to excuse the votes of Kerry and Edwards. They should have known not to trust Bush. They and the rest of Congress should have stood up for the Constitutional principle that only Congress can declare war. Nothing better illustates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than their recognition that the decision to go to war should not be vested in a single man.

We can agree that Kerry and Edwards do not have perfect records, but they would not have taken us to war against Iraq if they had been president and VP. (Neither would have Gore....) Who do we want to trust with decisions of war and peace in the future? Who is better able to repair our national reputation in the world. Clearly not Bush.

MarcinGomulka: I assume that Cheney is referring to "S-corporations" (named after the subchapter of the tax code that regulates them). S-corporations don't pay any corporate income tax directly; instead, their profits and losses are "passed through" to shareholders, who report them on their individual tax returns. So if, for example, you owned 25% of an S-corporation, then as far as the IRS is concerned, 25% of that corporation's profits are your income, and you would have to pay taxes on it.

The debate revealed much, however, I was extremely disappointed in Edwards for not finding the right time or place to bring up, and drum attack on:

CHENEY'S SECRET ENERGY COMMISSION

*The fact the memebrs of this team/force is still under wraps and had to be stymied by supreme court remains a debacle. The fact Ken Lay of Enron and other miscreants of society are probably on thsi list ...is still a guarded secret is a big flop of the debate. Make me wonder if it was a brain fart, or the Democrats felt it not important.

"...because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses..." Brad, could you provide the definition of small business used by economists and official government agencies?