Oct

6

CU Democrats and Republicans Spar In Lerner

Written by

Bwog headed to Roone Cinema this evening ready for our daily dose of lively intellectual discourse, today’s source being the first of three debates between the College Democrats and Republicans on issues pertinent to the upcoming election. We settled into our cushy seat surrounded by a vast sea of argyle sweaters and watched the games begin.

Tonight’s debate, hosted by the CPU, focused on foreign policy and energy solutions. Each side was told to stick to their respective party platforms, even if their personal views differed. The Dems kicked off the night, using their precious 120 allotted seconds to discuss the various failings they found with the Bush Administration, calling the War in Iraq “stupid” and explaining the economic policies of the Administration as forming a collective “wrecking ball to the economy.”

The Dems and Repubs engaged in some back-and-forth about Iraq, the Repubs noting that Obama’s “cut and run” would lead to “defeat.” Both sides acknowledged that Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon would be the “sum of all fears.” The Dems and Repubs differed greatly on their views about the role of the U.N, the young freshman Republican in a finely tailored suit argued that the U.N is “quite simply, not working” while the increasingly flustered Dems called for the U.S to maintain its active role in the U.N and abide by U.N sanctions. 

Discussion of energy inevitably lead to discussion of foreign oil which lead in turn to a discussion of this summer’s Georgian Crisis. One Dem debater admitted that Russia’s actions were both “over the top” and “pretty outrageous” but maintained that it was a time for level-headed talks with both sides, prompting the response from the Repubs that Russia was simply “the aggressor” in the Conflict.

The debate continued with its fair share of political cliches to warm us up for tomorrow’s second presidential candidate debate — McCain was said to “walk the walk, but not talk the talk.” Bwog couldn’t help but notice a fair amount of smirking at the Republicans’ table, and mouthing-along and wild gesticulating between partners on the Democrats’ side.

The show was over a little after 9 PM, at which point the Democrats had firmly established that McCain’s record in the Senate is “not good” and the Republicans heralded their claim that our country “faces unprecedented challenges that we’ve never faced before.”

Bwog gave all involved a hearty round of applause and left Lerner, our minds abuzz. The next College Dems vs Repubs debate will be October 15, followed by a watch party for an actual presidential debate.

Photo by Liz Naiden

Tags: , , , ,

20 Comments

  1. Any particular  

    reason for the bottom line (date, comments, etc.) font to be exceptionally small?

  2. cucr alum

    "Each side was told to stick to their respective party platforms, even if their personal views differed."

    The Republicans would have never agreed to that in the past. By arguing on the party platform, the Republicans are more likely to be perceived negatively by their overwhelmingly liberal peers. Arguing personal beliefs was always a good PR move because it showed that CU Republicans, just like the Dem peers, can come to their own political conclusions.

    • well  

      it also goes to show that many smart republicans are, at best, trying to pander to the Columbia audience, or at worst, embarrassed by their party's policies.

      Meanwhile, the CU Dems need to stop using inflamed rhetoric and start being analytical, insightful, and factual as Joe Biden was at the VP debate. This year's rhetoric and last year's as well makes come off the way Sarah Palin did at the debate.

      • ummm

        the joe biden being 'factual' and 'analytical' part is a joke right? he said so many false things (including the fact the diner he referenced as good ol joe had been closed for 15 yrs) and just got so many things wrong in that debate it was amazing:

        http://heroesforhillary.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/bidens-14-debate-lies/

        • lol  

          I'm amazed that you were in a state of disbelief over what Biden said and not what Palin said ("no, I don't want to answer that question, but lets talk about energy!"). It's only ridiculous right-wing blogs like the one you cite that are suggesting Biden was dishonest. A closer look at those blogs will reveal that they are the ones being misleading and unclear over what Biden meant.

          I've seen that link you posted and you're full of shit. Most of those "lies" you cite were either taken out of context, or further explained by Biden.
          For example, for point #7 under Healthcare, Biden did acknowledge that Americans will get a $5000 tax credit, but that this will not offset the $12000 of health benefits that will now get taxed.

          For point #9, CNN's fact-check show verified that the claim is true; Mckieran said that a surge similar to the one in Iraq would not work.

          As for point #1, your website doesn't provide any detail of the vote in question, so you are completely out of line in citing that as a factual error. Biden said that "by Governor Palin's standard" of looking at tax-hike votes,
          What about when Palin said she supported Civil Unions for homosexuals? Is that a lie too? That was much more explicit than any of the things you're citing.

          • haha

            don't try to pass of bs spin from cnn as a fact check---McKiernan in fact did suggest a military + political surge would work http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/01/mideast/military.php

            cnn unsurprisingly ignores that Palin referred to the principles of the surge, which unsurprisingly also included a political surge that supported the anbar awakening in their 'factcheck'---so biden's blanket declaration that McKiernan said a 'surge' wouldn't work is nonsense

            as for healthcare..you clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about...first there is no 'tax' on 12000 dollars---12000 dollars is the estimate for how much healthcare costs--5000 dollars is the tax credit mccain is proposing for families

            the tax is a separate thing where people already with employer paid health insurance will be taxed on their total income including the health insurance theyre getting covered--those increased taxes will then be offset by the upto 5000 dollar credit essentially lowering their taxes and easing healthcare costs

            here's a good article to read to educate yourself on that http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/bidens-phony-health-care-argument

            As for the first part---it was simple vote on a resolution regarding the expiration of the current tax cuts in 2011--obama and biden have used the fact mccain differently in the past as a key distinction which they say allied him to bush--its such an obvious lie i'm suprised you need support from it

            otherwise, i like how you brush aside the other lies which were sourced

            as for palin--she definitely lied or said inconsistent things too--unlike you i'm not an ignorant or blind partisan--the civil unions thing was an obvious one. She also avoided questions and seemed awkward at other times. The point isn't that she won the debate--the point is how hilarious it is to think biden was truthful and analytical in that debate. i'll even give you a more bi-partisan source that picked up on biden's deceptions http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/the_vp_debate_bidens_distortio.html

        • oh and  

          if you actually watched the debate, Biden was also very clear about the fact that John mccain also voted against funding the troops if the bill had a time line in it. The point he was making is that Mccain's vote was political as well.

  3. the whole point  

    is that it was supposed to be a PRESIDENTIAL event that informed Columbia about what the candidates though. I think when there are issue based debates after the election, they will be based upon personal views.

  4. ^^^  

    ^makes the CU Dems come off

  5. Salz-fan  

    I found it rather unfortunate that you failed to mention L. Salz by name :(

  6. debate  

    Wait, did the Dems really say they wanted to eradicate Pakistan's nuclear weapons? I read that on their live-blog. If so, how exactly do they suggest that's going to happen?

  7. Hah

    I read the nuclear weapons thing with a dumbfounded expression. United States takes weapons. India launches cross border attack into Kashmir. Cue WWIII? Nice thinking CU Dems, I see you were paying attention in your poli-sci courses.

  8. haha  

    Did the Republicans REALLY argue over whether John McCain got a C or a C- on the Darfur scorecard? That's funny...

  9. actually  

    the freshman in a finely tailored suit was NOT lauren salz

  10. I hate how..

    republicans laugh at their opponents during debates, like what is being said is an absurdity. All I can picture is an awkwardly smirking john mccain saying "that's not change we can believe in." f-u and your condescending smirks. you voted for bush, that alone is enough to discredit your right to be patronizing. 159k ppl lost jobs last month. nobody's laughing.

  11. ^^^  

    "by Governor Palin's standard" of looking at tax-hike votes, it would seem like Mccain was a tax-hiker too...

  12. Salz-fan  

    Don't worry, I'm completely aware of who L. Salz is

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.