I thought Rove owned Plouffe during the entire debate, although was kinda rude while doing so. It was cheesy and it wasnt the only moment Plouffe used a cheapshot against Republicans rather than defending their position. Democrats win the debate on morality – its tough to argue that health care for those that dont have any is a bad position. But they fail to prove their case that we can afford it and it wont hurt the 80% of Americans who like their current health care services.

I dont think Republicans are saying the CBO is bad or wrong, they are saying the numbers that were given to them in the bill are faulty. Ryan on Fox News and Rove on ABC used the same talking point about them double counting the $500B in Medicare cuts and other cost reductions, but neither Wasserman-Shultz or Plouffe could say that their statement was false. There only answer was the CBO says it will cut the deficit in 2 decades. Sounds like they were instructed to dodge the real straight answer which is why so many dont trust this bill.

Plouffe is an amateur compared to Rove, and unfortunately the CBO only has the capability of churning out data it is given just like a computer, garbage in = garbage out.

The public has already figured out the Dems are using Enron style accounting, most of us still know 2+2=4 not 7.

It’s gonna a long time before Dems get control again…..if ever. Since the freaks of the far left kidnapped the party, it won’t be long before you see a Democratic version of the Tea Party too.

Rove clearly won the interrupt and talk-over dimension of the discussion. But, he’s a FOXian. No surprise there. Plouffe won on substantive points and, as indicated, the morality dimension. Lillian Hellman once said that the problem with Richard Nixon was not so much his immoraility as his amorality. I think we have Richard Nixon’s illegitimate offspring in Rove.

Rove decimated that phony Dem.

Plouffe did nothing but name call and as usual, could not refute one thing Rove said. Well done Karl.

Johnny M– you make a rational argument, and while I disagree with much of what you argue, i appreciate the level of discourse you bring.

I think the strategy that both dems had on the shows this morning was a debate strategy. (Let me say first of all, I don’t agree with the numbers that the GOP reps are spouting about the CBO. But for the purpose of this thread, I’ll stick to the optics.)

Policy numbers are the stuff of wonks. What I believe the Dems are doing now–since HCR is going to pass–is reducing the argument to sell it in simpler terms to the public. What it will do for them, how it will benefit the country. To get too caught in numbers–when you’ve won the game–is counter-productive. What they want is what people can simply take away from argument (a strategy MASTERED by the GOP.)

In addition, the Republicans, after being fiscally irresponsible for 8 years, suddenly touting themselves as the paragon of deficit reduction, open themselves up for an easily-tagged charge of hypocrisy.

So this morning, just on debate terms, If being “owned” is blustering red-faced and screaming “Deal with the board!”, while your opponent lances you with the take-away lines, you may be right. But I would kindly disagree with you.

The argument isn’t won by who yells the loudest.

Rove came off as desperate filibusterer throwing numbers in the air on his mini-Glenn Beck board. (Now the substance and veracity of his numbers we can debate as well–but for the moment lets just go purely on optics.) The public at large has a deep well of reference as to what trusting Rove’s numbers ON ANYTHING leads to. I’m sure Plouffe went with that, which is why instead of going down the rabbit of arguing with Rove on numbers, he did what essentially amounted to a victory lap (albeit mostly substance-free), staying above Rove’s increasingly angry rants, to give his positive talking points about the bill, only dipping down occassionally to hit Rove when it counted.

And that Mission: Impossible banner line…ouch. (Shades of Lloyd Bentsen.) Which is why Rove got angry–he knew he’d been hit,. Rove responded with a credulity-straining explaination to an attempt justify the banner (which came off humorous, and clearly untrue, given Bush’s speech that day), then tried to paint Plouffe as denigrating the servicemen (an old, dull, and now really ineffective tool out of the GOP toolbox. I’d call that a cheap shot…if it had any chance of landing.)

all in all, a glorious day.

Never-served cowards discussing “missions.”

I had a similar reaction to slk’s, but overall I found the entire debate fascinating from the perspective of rhetorical strategy. Both men are clearly the type who go into an interview like that knowing exactly what they want to accomplish. Don’t think for a moment Rove was actually that angry; that was just the persona he wanted to adopt for the debate. Similarly, I’m sure Plouffe is conversant in all the of the details of the bill, but he had no intention of chasing Rove down that rabbit hole (even when Rove made dubious allegations such as charging that the administration solicited Federal employees to write emails to their friends praising the bill).

But what’s really fascinating is that if you Google “Rove Plouffe This Week”, you’ll find blog posts on both sides insisting that their guy “pwned” the other. I could certainly see how someone on the right would think that Rove threw out a bunch of damning facts and Plouffe could only answer with glib one-liners, whereas many lefties (including me) felt like Rove was rude and combative and clearly let Plouffe get under his skin. The truth is, both of them probably accomplished what they set out to do.

BTW, since Plouffe was clearly trying to needle Rove, I’m surprised he didn’t bust his balls over Rove’s infamous “You are entitled to your math, and I’m entitled to THE math,” prediction before the ’06 elections (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_dukes_it_out_with_NPR_1025.html). Too inside baseball, I guess.