I think that this was the first time I have watched, front to back, an entire vice-presidential debate. This has proved to be a volatile election and in this environment the side-show has the possibility of effecting the center ring action.
My quick impression is that Biden won the debate, he kept Ryan on the defensive most of the night, though this was by no means a blow-out like the first presidential debate. It was also close enough that partisan from either side will claim victory.
One – of many- exchanges that caught my attention was Ryan on abortion. I am pro-choice, I do not agree with the concept that conception is the point at which we should be legally bound to recognize full human rights. Ryan’s answer though went beyond simply the mine field of abortion and into the nature of religious thought and its place in government. It goes too far into mixing the two.
RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.
hmm a speech writer for G.W. Bush doesn’t think well of a Democrat’s performance, I don’t know how I can counter that.
Really what he had to say is really what has been going around on the conservative side of the media for days. It’s hardly a definitive takedown, but more of a straight opinion piece.
May the Obama 2012 campaign enjoy many more such ‘victories’.
Devastating review from Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-bidens-damaging-debate-victory/2012/10/15/
I’ve also heard tell he hunts hobos to satisfy his bloodlust, and when those aren’t around he strangles kittens.
I find what Ryan said very interesting – since every policy he has espoused and voted for has been AGAINST taking care of people. To me – BIG loser saying that regardless of the context. He SAYS he’s a man of faith and cares about people but his voting record tells us otherwise.
Biden won using the metric of election outcome? Err… You didn’t understand what I wrote. Winning in this case is advancing the odds your team will be elected. Advancing the odds, not winning the election. You can win the debates, increases you chances of winning the election and still lose the election. Even if all that Biden did was to re-energize a dispirited base, then he advanced the odds of his slate winning, if he advanced those odds further than Ryan did then he clearly won. We’ll see when we have polls from about a week out from the debate.
I see it instead as a political attack on Biden as a Catholic. It’s mere base politics, not a threat of theocracy. Ryan is attacking Biden’s claim to be a good Catholic while simultaneously Biden supports abortion in law and public policy. Yes, Biden sees that the public laws is not about his personal faith and Ryan states that his public life is inseparable from his private life. I want a politician that understands that Constitution trumps bible and trumps church.
“Ryan’s answer though went beyond simply the mine field of abortion and into the nature of religious thought and its place in government. It goes too far into mixing the two.”
Since I didn’t watch the debate, I googled the question you are referring to in order to watch Ryan’s answer. You certainly have a very different take on what Ryan said compared to my take, especially when the quote is taken in context with the complete Ryan response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOpb9irG3Cw
You seem to represent the Ryan statement as some kind of pronouncement of theocracy. I see it instead as a political attack on Biden as a Catholic. It’s mere base politics, not a threat of theocracy. Ryan is attacking Biden’s claim to be a good Catholic while simultaneously Biden supports abortion in law and public policy.
In addition, I don’t see how the Ryan pull quote is materially different from something Biden said in his response to the same debate question, seen in the linked video from the 3 minute mark to the 3 minute 20 second mark. How is that segment of Biden’s response any better than what you quoted from Ryan when it comes to mixing politics and religion?
Biden won using the metric of election outcome? Err…
About all that can be said for Biden using that metric is he emboldened his dispirited base. On the other hand the so-called undecided voters whose only means of judging Biden might have been the debate because they are low-information voters were likely very put-off by Biden’s overdose of smug. Apparently the contrast between Biden’s and Ryan’s manner gave a surprising edge to Ryan among women viewers.
Then there was the big glaring Libya claim Biden made during the debate, which is still generating news and has the potential of blowing up the Obama campaign since (as it now appears likely) Obama is throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus to take the blame for the Obama administration failure to provide adequate security for the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Winning in this case is advancing the odds your team will be elected. All other considerations are secondary. On that metric I think it is clear that Romney won, and I think it is likely that Biden won last night, but we’ll know more in a week.
The thing I find most interesting in declaring “winners” of either debate: how can Romney be said to have won, when all he did was lie? Style points for being a douchebag-extreme, sure, but winning? Hardly.