« The Bush Doctrine vs. The Kerry Doctrine | Home | John Kerry Has Been Outsourcing Truth »
Cheney Won
By Matt Margolis | October 6, 2004
I’ve heard for months now that John Edwards is some talented trial lawyer whose experience awarded him with great communication skills, and perhaps even the power of persuasion.
That esteemed trial lawyer was not in court tonight.
I watched Edwards closely tonight. He often appeared shaken (not stirred) by Cheney rebuttals – even if only slightly. The confident smiling trial lawyer I expected to see go against our vice-president just was not there tonight.
Edwards tried to make the debate about Cheney and Bush, but Edwards was often using his energy to defend not only himself, but John Kerry. Unable to offer any convincing defense of Kerry’s “global test” gaffe, Edwards looked like a little boy jumping up and down for attention, while Dick Cheney was clearly the man of experience and knowledge. The split screen shots brought that image to the audience – giving the voter to reflect on the question, “If one of these two had to take over for the President in a time of crisis, who would you want to be in that position?”
No doubt about it… that man is Dick Cheney.
When the moderator asked, “What is a global test if it is not a global veto” Edwards crumbled and avoided answering the question. This devastating moment for Edwards reveals that even a well-experiencd trial lawyer couldn’t defend John Kerry’s statement.
Two moments stand out to me in the debate. When Dick Cheney said, “if [John Kerry and John Edwards] couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to standup to Al Qaeda?” That line will be a soundbyte that will resonate with voters, and so accurately describes the waffling of the Kerry ticket.
All John Edwards had to defend his ticket with was meaningless rhetoric. When Edwards said, “A long résumé does not equal good judgment,” it was demoralized admission of his own inexperience, which, in contrast to Cheney’s long record of public service, perpetuated the image that John Edwards is an unproven and untested politician whom we cannot risk having as Vice President of the United States.
All the trial lawyer experience in the world couldn’t have helped Edwards tonight. He dug his own grave, and Cheney buried him.
Topics: Election 2004 |
Related Posts:
October 6th, 2004 at 8:19 am
That was my favorite Cheney quote too. When Edwards made the resume comment, my husband kept rewinding and replaying it, and laughing hysterically. Since when is a long resume NOT an indicator of someone’s judgement?
This would be funny if so many people were not rooting for Kerry.
Kris
October 6th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Haliburton - it was not a “no-bid” contract, Haliburton was simply the only company that bid it because they were the only company that could do it. I’m so sick of the skin deep reporting by the liberal media.
something to think about…
So much for the Republicans being the party of the rich. It sure drops off quickly after Rockefeller.
—————————————————————–
1. John F. Kerry (D-MA) $675 million
2. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) $400 million
3. Herb Kohl (D-WS) $300 million
4. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) $200 million
5. (tie) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) $50 million
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $50 million
7. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) $40 million
8. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) $30 million
9. Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) $20 million
- Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) $20 million
10. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) $15 million
- Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) $10 million
From the Senate Roll Call
October 6th, 2004 at 10:33 am
Among average people, I’d say Edwards won. First of all, he’s really good looking, which (whether you like it or not) is how many people judge candidates (not me). And…Cheney came across as a grumpy old man. He had extremely poor eye contact and was growling all his words. I think this is the main reason why Edwards is coming out on top on most polls.
Meanwhile, Edwards had a smile on his face or in his eyes the whole time, which many people find comforting.
On the issues, I’d rate them about equal. I’m a Democrat, but I still think Cheney did an excellent job of explaining the issues and making it seem like he’s the one with the knowledge (something that Bush failed at on Thursday). Edwards did really well too. He’s also a fabulous debater (like Kerry).
October 6th, 2004 at 11:44 am
Here’s more evidence why only an absolute fool would pay any attention to anything Edwards says about improving health care:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20041006-011905-2332r
October 6th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
I thought Cheney was outstanding and John Edwards crumbled. I don’t understand the polls on CNN and MSNBC–immediately after the debate they indicated Edwards beat Cheney. I don’t think people were watching the same debate or maybe the commenter above is correct, that people are just responding to a “pretty” face. Sad.
I think the commenter Kahn above is on the right track, pointing out the millionaire Democrats. What I don’t understand is the New Yorker, in a profile of Theresa Kerry, reported she paid 11% income tax on an income of $5M. Why are the Republicans not seizing on this? It seems the government should focus on folks like that paying their fair share. I thought it was great for Cheney to point out that Edwards had availed himself of a tax loophole that allowed him to shave his Medicare contribution by $600,000.
October 6th, 2004 at 12:32 pm
“I think this is the main reason why Edwards is coming out on top on most polls.”
Marshall, I’m guessing you are referring to online polls, which aren’t scientific in the least… ABC’s snap poll showed Cheney as the victor, and the AP reports it’s at minimum a draw. I watched Edwards closely, and he appeared to be taken off-guard by Cheney’s rebuttals a number of times… I think Edwards’ trial lawyer experience helped him somewhat, but i think even for Dems he didn’t meet expectations.
October 6th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
“When Dick Cheney said, “if [John Kerry and John Edwards] couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to standup to Al Qaeda?”
Hey Matt explain why Bush and Co. outsourced the job of getting Bin Laden to the Pakistanis? Does America want a leader who gives the job of protecting the American public to other nations? NO! They want a leader who stays on the ball. Diverting the troops from Afghanistan only to send them to Iraq….lame.
October 6th, 2004 at 1:00 pm
the reason we “outsourced” was that it was a) their country b) we are being both tactically smart (they know the terrain and people better) and culturally sensitive (so as not to topple the kind of moderate Islamic forces necessary to witn the peace) and c) I thought the Kerryites LIKED coalition building?!? WHEN it makes sense to rely upon coalition partners, we will do it, when not, we’ll do it alone. e.g. N. Korea, China is the single most influential nation on earth in modifying N.Korea policy and behavior, why NOT work WITH them? Because Kerry et.al. are more concerned with Gotcha then sound international policy.
October 6th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
so you’re saying Bush and Co. are being smart by letting another nation seach for the biggest threat to the US public? Lmao. And since when does the US give a fuck whether it’s someone else’s country? Idiot!
October 6th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
No…the real idiot is the a**hole that thinks we don’t know that he would criticize Bush no matter how he proceeded…let the Pakistanis do it, send the Marines into Pakistan, whatever. Doesn’t make any difference, because the real idiot will always find something to criticize.
October 6th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
By the way, although I also believe that Cheney won, I agree with one reader who e-mailed Jonah Goldberg at “The Corner”…
“Did you see when Edwards said something like, “Gwenn, Our country has never been so divided in our history.”
Cheney should have said, “Actually, it was more divided during the Civil War, when Democrats from North Carolina were waging war on the United States in an attempt to keep people like Gwen Ifill enslaved.”
October 6th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
This is really funny! It’s ok to be “culturally sensitive” in the capture of the man who killed 3000 of our citizens, but it’s wrong to try to get other countries to back us in invading a country, where no attacks against us had been made yet?????
i’m sensing some inconsistencies here!!!!!
October 6th, 2004 at 5:39 pm
technically marshall, the man behind 9-11 … the one who masterminded it, was Khalid Sheikh Mohammad…
he’s been captured.
October 6th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
I said I would concede that the other side won in a debate if I truly believed it. Cheney definitely spoke better than Bush did and was able to respond to charges that Bush was unable to. Edwards didn’t do anywhere near as bad as Bush but in terms of his rhetoric he did not match Kerry and was not able to control the arguement as well.
It was a much closer debate and I think it could be argued either way depending on what you put the most emphasis on. But I think Cheney won in terms of actual argument, foremost because he made Bush look like a dolt and was actually competent. If someone wants to argue about looks and more superficial parts of the debate then I’m sure Edwards had an edge.
October 7th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
marshall, for a while I thought Edwards’ looks might be a factor. In still photos, he is kind of cute, in an endearing, puppy-dog kind of way. But in person, or at least in the televised debate, he lost more and more of that cuteness by the minute. He started off cocky, arrogant, condescending, and smug—and went downhill from there. I kept trying to think of who he reminded me of, and then it hit me—Eddie Haskell! He was so sure of his charm and good looks and ability to insinuate himself using them and nothing else, but no one was as convinced as he was. He got more and more smarmy as the debate went on.
After a while, I added “callow” to the list of things that made him so creepy. He was so obviously out of his element, so obviously in over his head, so obviously outmatched, that his callowness became more and more apparent. I kept thinking “THIS guy one heartbeat away from the Presidency? Eeeewwww!!”
Unlike the emotion-based liberal slant, I don’t look to be “comforted” by someone’s “smile”. I want to be reassured by someone’s knowledge, experience, and—dare I insert a value-laden word—-moral values. Which means I don’t want someone trying to find a buzzword that will get an emotional response from me, and I don’t want someone inventing “facts” to try to score points.
And, to marshall and todd….
Here’s a Dem buzzword: “outsourcing”. It is used as a perjorative, and it is supposed to create an emotional, knee-jerk, reaction. Hmmm. Wonder why that is necessary, if there is any substance behind the allegation?
But for those of us who have done our homework, and listened to something other than left-wing spin, the escape of Bin Laden is not a big mystery, or a scandal. I live in the mountains—not in the Afghanistan mountains, but in big rough mountains nontheless. So I may have a better understanding than most about how a native, who knows the terrain, is going to have an advantage over a stranger.
There is an effort to create the impression that the U.S. had Bin Laden “surrounded”—in much the same way you could make a circle of troops around a house, or a tent. But in rough mountains, it doesn’t work that way. In that kind of terrain, you can try to block obvious escape routes—valleys, passes, etc.—but that is all you can do. Throw in a warren of tunnels and caves, entrances of which are hidden, and you’d better have some natives on hand to guide you.
We trapped a lot of the Taliban in Tora Bora. But “surrounded” them? Not likely. Try to “surround” a mountain sometime. So, what would an intelligent commanding officer do? I’d say he’d turn to those who knew the area best, who could speak the language, who could establish relationships with those they met and who had some credibility with those people. Who would those people be? American soldiers? Afghani politicians? Armchair quarterback Democrats? Yeah, right.
They did what they had to do, and they turned to rough, knowledgeable, locals. Who uses secret caves and tunnels? The Red Cross? No, they are used by thieves, bandits, people with something to hide—-warlords, to use a newly popular phrase.
So, Bin Laden got away. I doubt that anyone knows exactly how. I will bet that no U.S. liberal KNOWS. He may never have been there. He may have left days earlier. He may have had help from someone who sympathized with him, or who hated the outsiders. He may have paid someone a lot of money to help him. His teeny tiny body parts may be scattered all over the rocks surrounding a cave hit by a bunker buster bomb. But claiming to KNOW that we HAD the ability to stroll in and capture him, and to KNOW that we didn’t because we OUTSOURCED that job to WARLORDS is just plain silly.
What I am seeing in the current fad of shrieking about “warlords” is an echo of the righteous indignation that the CIA and FBI were getting information from sources that were—gasp—not very nice people. Well, we can see what happened when we limited our intelligence sources to the clean-cut and upright.
I try really hard to discuss matters with liberals, but the flying spittle, the venom and vitriol, and the basic emotional and hysterical silliness of most so-called arguments makes it very difficult.
FACTS, people. Let’s talk about FACTS. It will go so much better. Regarding the first debate, it is a FACT that the President looked tired. It is a FACT that he did not have the vigorous presentation of Kerry. But to judge the debate, we have to get beyond the cosmetic surface and look at the FACTS of who said what, and what was accurate, and what was not.
October 7th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
Matt - will start a blog on the recent multiple acts of violence and intimidation against Republicans?
“On the same day that someone fired shots into the windows at the Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, angry Kerry supporters laid siege to the Bush headquarters in St. Paul Minnesota today. “
October 7th, 2004 at 10:12 pm
Matt, does the fact that nearly everything Cheney said has been exposed as a lie change your view of who won the debate? If not, what does that say about your integrity? Cheney got off a good shot about never having met Edwards. But the fact that it wasn’t true turned out to be a pretty big deal.
October 7th, 2004 at 11:03 pm
Lowell - being in the same room does not mean they “met.” There are only a hundred senators - seems he (Edwards)could have struck up a conversation with the president of the Senate at some point.
And - “nearly everything?” Give me a break. Kerry and Edwards ARE the most liberal guys in the Senate. He is a friendly challenge: Name thre senators who are more liberal than they are.
October 8th, 2004 at 12:00 am
Lowell, all Edwards had to do at the debate was rebut with “Wait a minute, we did meet.”
But Edwards didn’t say that? Why? because even Edwards wasn’t confident enough to say he had met cheney before.. because either he couldn’t remember or because he hadn’t acutally met him.
Cheney was making a point that Edwards have AWOL from the senate… point made. point taken.
October 8th, 2004 at 3:07 am
EDWARDS WON - Hands Down. I thought it would be close but Cheney comes off as such a grumpy old man who is ready to say anything he needs to in order to win. I dont trust anything he says and I won’t be surprised when Kerry and Edwards win the election.
October 8th, 2004 at 1:06 pm
If you vote Repuke YOU SUPPORT child molestin!
END CHILD RAPE - VOTE DEMOCRAT!
October 9th, 2004 at 9:24 am
And Dum Yeah, the failed and bitter sandwich monkey takes a time out to post an idiotic link he stumbled upon while surfing for beastiality porn sites.
Having been suspended from his job dressing in a giant pickle suit and handing out sandwich coupons, he spends his days, huddled in his parent’s basement, churning out insipid nonsense against Republicans.
He cannot admit that his constant habit of picking his nose by jamming his index finger into his nostril up to the second knuckle was the cause of his termination and not President Bush.
October 10th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Lowell—”nearly everything”?
Such as??? OK, maybe Cheney and Edwards were in the same room at the same time, once upon a time—at a breakfast, wasn’t it? This tells me that Edwards was:
1. Such a lightweight, he didn’t show up on the radar; and
2. He didn’t make any effort to introduce himself to the leader of the Senate, thereby showing himself to be politically unsavvy.
Or, maybe, smart enough to know that if he had been doing his job as a Senator, he wouldn’t HAVE to introduce himself.
Don’t just toss out a comment about lies without backing it up, Lowell.
October 12th, 2004 at 10:12 am
Matt, so you’re saying that the ONLY possible reason Edwards didn’t mention that they did in fact meet was because he didn’t remember? It couldn’t have been possible that Edwards knew that Cheney’s lie was going to blow up with dramatic effect, and Edwards didn’t want to take away from that effect?
Given your stupidity, you may not recognize that possibility; OK.
But here’s what you’re suggesting. That Cheney met Edwards on three occasions at least: at the prayer breakfast, in the Meet the Press green room, and when he introduced Elizabeth Dole as the new North Carolina senator. That Edwards has presided over the Senate more often than Cheney has. That Cheney has not presided over the Senate most Tuesdays, but only goes up there to meet with Republicans. THAT BOTH EDWARDS AND CHENEY FORGOT ALL THIS. That’s what you’re saying.
Now, Matt, we know you’re stupid, but this goes beyond mere stupidity, into the realm of utter insanity.