Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Tuesday, October 05, 2004Non-baseball: Veep debateIt was clear what John Edwards was attempting to do tonight. He wanted to keep whatever momentum Kerry may have gained from his Thursday debate win alive heading into Friday's second clash. In fact, he referenced it five separate times by my count. He failed miserably. He used it most notably whenever Cheney would toss out the "flip-flopper" speal. Edwards would counter with "you all saw Thursday night- John Kerry said..." Yeah, but John Kerry says a lot of things. Half of it is bullshit, and other half contradicts the first half. Defend your man Edwards! Don't just parrot him. Cheney got in the three or four best punches, including this gem: "Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't.It's the first time I've heard a word about Kerry's senate record in ages- since the Republican National Convention if memory serves. Hopefully this will be a new, consistent line of attack for the Bush campaign. Cheney hammered on it all night, and I assume that it marks the beginning of a coordinated assault. Edwards was far too focused on Halliburton- he used the word "Halliburton" six times- a situation that Cheney diffused admirably. My only problem with Cheney's response was that he failed to retaliate by attacking Edward's past as a trial lawyer (and a particularly despicable past it is). Cheney didn't mention it once, not even when asked about tort reform. (By the way, I thought Edwards' response to the tort reform question was one of the most misleading and evasive responses I've ever seen. Not a surprise coming from an ambulance chaser.) I felt that Cheney mounted a well-reasoned defense of the war (I hope W was taking notes) and he clearly won the national defense/foreign policy portion of the debate. I would go as far as to say that he thrashed Edwards for the first 45 minutes. Edwards turned his night around on a few of the domestic policy issues, but I would still give that portion to Cheney, who seemed to be the more informed of the pair all night. Overall, I'd say it's clear that Cheney had this one well in hand. Like Bush, he constantly questioned his opponent's facts without seeming combative or accusing him of being a liar (that's about all Bush did well on Thursday)- the same can't be said of Edwards, who attempted to play the "pity me, he's exaggerating my record" game all night. It came off pretty bad from my view. Really, I don't have much positive to say about Edward's performance. I'm trying to be non-partisan here (and I'm failing miserably, I know), but I thought it was a dismal showing. That was my inititial thought after digesting the debate, and it was only solidified after reading the transcript. So Edwards failed to achieve his goal of keeping Kerry's momentum in-tact. I wouldn't call his performance disastrous, but only because it was in a Veep Debate, which ultimately means squat. If this has any effect on the polls, most likely it will bring whatever surge Kerry was riding to a halt, but won't go as far as to help the President's numbers. More importantly, however, is the fact that Cheney opened up many new lines of attack and exposed some vulnerabilities that Bush can now exploit (if he has that capability). UPDATE: I gave out grades for the Presidential debate, so I figured I should do the same here: Style: Cheney: B-. He kept inadvertently covering his mic with his hands, so he sounded like he was in a box. He also came off rather dull, because, well... he's rather dull.Content: Cheney: A. There can be no doubt that Dick Cheney has a firm grasp on all the issues. He's always had the reputation of being a policy wonk, and he lived up to that tonight.Overall: Cheney: A-. |
