Edwards' strategy?

[tolbiny]

Edwards is leaving his strongest points for the last 30 seconds when Chaney has no time to respond, often not addressing what Chaney had just said- allowing himself to go on a tangent so that he can hit his major points unapposed.
anyone else seeing this, agree/disagree?

[sameoldsht]

Agree - just like a scumbag trial lawyer waiting for closing statements.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards is leaving his strongest points for the last 30 seconds when Chaney has no time to respond, often not addressing what Chaney had just said- allowing himself to go on a tangent so that he can hit his major points unapposed.
anyone else seeing this, agree/disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Agree - just like a scumbag trial lawyer waiting for closing statements.



[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of a Letterman's top ten list a while back, "Top Ten Bronco Excuses for Losing the Super Bowl".

"Those mean Giant's players were shoving us!"

[1111]

How is that a scumbag strategy....sounds like a solid strategy to me.

[sameoldsht]

Saddam’s strategy of cutting of the tongues out of detractors might have been a solid one and an effective one, but I would not consider it respectable or admirable.

[1111]

Nice try Bud, but I thought we were talking about solid debating strategies. Comparing what Edwards is doing tonight to Saddam in your example is just absurd. In fact, I don't see any relevance to your post, other than to point out your own strange argumentation style.

[MMMMMM]

Lots of lawyers use "solid" strategies in the courtroom. That doesn't mean those "solid" strategies aren't also scumbag strategies.

[1111]

Very true, MMMMMMMM, but I doubt you agree that the stated strategy by Edwards is an example of a scumbag strategy? It seems to me that sameoldsht's strategy of using that Saddam example is more scumbag because it has no relevance and is purely designed for emotional response. Agree?

[MMMMMM]

I think the practice of saving principal points only for summation (which cannot be rebutted) is slippery and intellectually dishonest. It smacks of gamesmanship rather than an honest attempt to put forth and debate the issues. Summation should be just that: a summation with emphasis on elect previously mentioned points, not an introduction of entiurely new material (I have not been watching the debates so I don't know if Edwards actually did this or not).

I think SOS's example was somewhat ill-considered, and that it probably showed his own emotional response, rather than being a calculated attempt to play on the emotions of the reader.

[1111]

On it's face, I don't think the use of the strategy in question is dishonest. Also, because of the structure of the debate, Cheney had ample opportunity to refute what Edwards was saying, and quite often the debaters delayed answering new questions in order to respond to the previous comments of their opponent. All in all, both men impressed me with their debating skills and neither stooped to any type of "scumbag" level during the debate.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"How is that a scumbag strategy....sounds like a solid strategy to me."

*****It is a "sound" strategy for an unqualified-rookie-senator trial-lawyer who wishes to be the VP of the United States. The alternative is to compete on ideas and defend your ideas....Gasp

Style over substance. Edwards is such a phony. Kerry/Edwards will get spanked in Novemeber, unless the Democrats can register enough dead people to vote....... There certainly can't win on an honest deabte of ideas...

[1111]

Your posts always sound as if you are constipated and overstimulated....Anyway, I think Edwards did offer and defend his opinions and ideas, and I also think that he and Cheney both used the "scumbag" tactics to an equal degree. I do not think Edwards is a phony, although I do think he is more of an optimist than most hardened Washington veterans. And as to your registering dead people comment, I think you underestimate the dissatisfaction of many Americans, even those that lean to the right -- mainly because of his economic policies -- with the Bush administration. At this point I think Bush will win, but Kerry crushed him in the first debate and I think if he can repeat that performance, the public just may push Bush out of office.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, well I am glad to hear that, especially since I didn't get to watch the debates. Thanks.

[1111]

No problem, MMMMMM. You should watch a replay of the debate...although it was not as interesting as Bush versus Kerry, it is still worth a watch. I do think, however, if you saw it, you'd agree with my assessment.

[elwoodblues]

Disagree. Didn't see it.

[Al Mirpuri]

This is how Leonard beat Hagler. He kept the good stuff for the last 30 seconds of each round.