This is long but stay with me. Especially if you support Kerry and Edwards.
Both candidates were good speakers. Republican fans didn't have to worry about a hesitant and stuttering President Bush coming up against a renowned debater in John Kerry. I was actually very impressed with Dick Cheney's performance. He always seemed like this quiet, old, fat guy, but he's really brilliant! He stayed calm and collected the entire time, acting very professional and "in control." John Edwards also did a fine job, but he often came across as arrogant and whiny.
There was some deja vu, as both candidates repeated key phrases from the first presidential debate Thursday, especially in the opening moments. But for the most part this debate stood apart as its own entity. Gwyn Ifill, the moderator, asked John Edwards some very good questions. In fact, she seemed like a biased Republican. She asked things like, "You've said you'll do this and this and this...how?" or "You did this, but then you did the opposite. Can you explain?" etc, etc.
I've come to realize that when a candidate has a bad spot and he knows it but obviously doesn't want to admit it, there are two ways to get around it. One is to cleverly avoid the question by subtly changing the subject. For example, when asked if Saddam would still be in power had Kerry and Edwards been in office... Edwards hardly even mentioned Saddam! He just went on and on about how there was no link, no link at all, we need to get bin Laden, there was no link! Why? Because he knew that Saddam really would still be in power because they wouldn't have gone to war. But of course he couldn't tell the American people that---they'd lose lots of votes.
Again, when asked about gay marriage, Edwards evaded and flip-flopped himself dizzy in an attempt to please everybody. I got a kick out of his response! Marriage is only between a man and a woman, he says, but they oppose a constutional amendment for it, and they want to give gay people all the rights that married people get, oh, but marriage is only between a man and a woman! That marriage phrase means nothing---they're obviously pro-gay. But so many people ardently believe in that marriage phrase that they have to stick it in there, or else lose lots of votes.
The second way for a candidate to avoid exposing his bad spot is to find that bad spot, or pretend to find that bad spot, in the other candidate. Edwards, what about Kerry's really bad and inconsistent record? Well, uh, Cheney's got a bad record! Edwards, how are you and Kerry gonna get more allies? Well, uh, they didn't get very many allies! Edwards, what about your bad voting record, and not voting 75% of the time? Well, uh, Cheney was one of only 10 people to vote for this. (So, at least he voted!) Edwards, what about your tax loophole? Well, uh, Cheney's got a tax loophole too!
To be fair, Cheney did some blame-shifting himself, and some of Edwards' attacks are or may be true for Cheney too. But when you compare the two, Edwards looks a lot worse. And when a candidate doesn't defend himself against a bad spot, but merely tries to get you to ignore it, what else can that mean but that those bad spots are true? Not looking good for Edwards.
Edwards also tried to make a big deal out of all these things him and Kerry were gonna do to make the world a perfect place. They're gonna do this, and pass this bill, and give money for this, and this, and that. Oh, yeah, and we're gonna cut the deficit in half, too! Huh?
After Cheny said, we try to attack the terrorists before they attack us, that's why we went to Iraq... then Edwards said, Saddam didn't attack us, and went on the old "no link" theme again. Is Edwards implying that we're going to wait until terrorists attack us before we attack them? Is that what he means by all this anti-Iraq war talk? Surely not.
Dick Cheney seemed to have a lot more facts than Edwards, and this lended more credibility to his side. Edwards had facts too, but overall, Cheney blew him away. He seemed to have some convincing pro-Bush and/or anti-Kerry statistics for just about every one of his comments. He did a great job defending the war and the president's positions, and he did a superb job attacking Kerry's and Edwards's inconsistencies.
After Edwards said, "Kerry has been completely consistent about the war," Cheney said, "I can think of a lot of words to describe Kerry's position on the war, and consistent is not one of them." He then listed half of dozen or more quotes and votes by Kerry over the years, half of them saying one thing and half saying the other. He said K and E only voted against one particular war bill because at that time Howard Dean was up in the Democratic polls running on an anti-war strategy, and they had to appear anti-war too to stay in the running. Sound far-fetched? Edwards didn't defend it at all. Is it true, then, that K and E will say and do whatever's necessary to please enough people to win the election? Surely not.
Cheney has a lot more experience than Edwards, who has only been a senator for one term. Cheney knows what he's doing. Edwards is an inexperienced blaming whiner who wants to broadcast every existing problem in Iraq and Afghanistan as if it's the president's fault. So what if Afghanistan produces 75% of the world's opium? As if the President caused that? We've taken out 75% of Al-quida (however you spell that) too!
Both sides have issues and unanswered questions. Neither Bush nor Cheney have contradicted what K and E said about us letting the Afghan military try to get bin Laden when we had him cornered instead of doing it ourselves. It looks like there's some money issues with Haliburton, too. But compared to K and E!! They have been inconsistent about the war, about gay marriage---blame-shifting and evading questions, implying that many accusations are true, and saying and doing whatever it takes so Kerry can become president. As Cheney said, "I don't think Kerry has the qualities needed to be Commander in Chief!"
Vote for Bush. I rest my case.
Edmond the Hun
