My Review Of The Miller v. Webb Debate
572 words.
Disclaimer: I am not at all qualified to judge political debates.
The short version
I still think Harris Miller (HM) is more qualified to be a Virginia senator than Jim Webb (JW). Unfortunately, I’m not terribly hopeful that either one of them can defeat George Allen. The odds are pretty long for defeating a Republican incumbent in a Republican state to start with, and JW appeared too arrogant and defensive, while HM didn’t seem imposing and persuasive enough.
The long version
FIrst of all, I didn’t think this was so much a “debate” as it was a “dual interview.”
JW was an imposing personality with an angry gleam in his eye. He seemed very comfortable on camera. He was measured and thoughtful in his responses and had a conversational style. He would make a good guest on or even host of a pundit show.
HM frankly seemed a little geeky — sort of a Bill Gates type. While he was introduced, I even thought he looked a little shifty. He did not appear terribly comfortable on camera, but he spoke with conviction and intelligence, and made his points quickly and clearly.
I thought HM’s opening statement was well rehearsed, firm, and decisive; he struck directly at George Bush and George Allen. In contrast, I thought JW’s opening statement rambled, and he did not mention George Allen at all. That became a pattern. HM frequently attacked Bush/Allen, but JW rarely mentioned them.
JW emphatically declared he would not have voted for the resolution for war in Iraq. He then discussed his thoughts and public statements he had made against Iraqi involvement going all the way back to the Iran-Iraq war, in a way that sounded like he was teaching a course in Middle East politics. He did not mention George Allen. On the same topic, HM immediately condemned George Allen for voting on the war without even reading the intelligence reports. He then reiterated his call to fire Donald Rumsfeld.
Side note: I’m surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but I found JW’s thoughts on international terrorism somewhat alarming. Maybe it was a blunder, but he actually said, “I’m very strongly opposed to the war against international terrorism.” I listened to it about 10 times to make sure I heard it right. It came at the end of a response to whether JW would have “raised a protest” against the war in Iraq. He somewhat confusingly said: “As I said, I’m very strongly opposed to… [um, um]… the war against international terrorism… [um]… I’m a supporter of doing something about that… [um]… I was in Afghanistan as a journalist in ‘04… [um]… but this was a strategic error and we should have had more people speaking out against it.”
After that, the debate quickly descended into chaos when HM interrupted JW’s thoughts on the downfalls of the Republican party to ask, “why did you support George Bush and George Allen in 2000?” (Which, to me, is a very legimate question that JW did not answer.) Childish bickering from both sides ensued about who had more endorsements, and you can read about that anywhere else, since it seems to be the part of the debate everyone is focusing on. To me, JW sounded angry and defensive. HM just sounded like an experienced debater exploiting a weakness.
There was more civilized discourse after the commercial break but I have to get ready for company now.
Sorry, new comments are disabled on older posts. This helps reduce spam. Active commenting almost always occurs within a day or two of new posts.