The Sunny Pessimist vs. the Growling Optimist
Matt Welch | October 6, 2004, 12:54am
I'll fourth the emerging consensus that tonight was basically a split decision, with Cheney getting the slight nod mostly because he's much more credible on reminding me of my Dad. Both landed blows, both evaded questions annoyingly, both would blurt out their two or three topically unrelated talking points (His record's not credible! There he goes again confusing Saddam-I-mean-Obama with Zamfir!) at will. I bailed as soon as the foreign policy segment ended.
My one exceedingly minor observation was that it was discombobulating to watch this congenitally sunny-side-up pretty boy try his left-handed best to prove that we're all Screwed, while the cranky old man with acid reflux barked out the Case for Optimism. Weird.
roger vajda | October 6, 2004, 9:50am | #
I give the debate to Edwards on the merits,but score it even rhetorically.
I was amused that Cheney sent the listeners to factcheck.org. I am a subscriber to that website and read everything they publish. The have called out Cheney on some of the falsehoods he repeated again last night. What, did he think we wouldn't check up on him?
I am disappointed Cheney did ot answer the questions about Halliburton. They are not democratic smokescreens. Even some republicans, like John McCain, are concerned about the far too cozy relationship between this administration and corporations. Cheney and a number of Bush appointees have continued relations with corporations for which they served, and the revolving door betweengovernment and private industry sometimes does not even wait for the niceties of resignation (e.g. Tommy Thompson). This question should have been answered. And Cheney should have volunteered an answer that makes sense on why the public still may not know who was at the Energy Policy meeting (to which the public was not invited) and what was said. Mr. Cheney is paid by the tax payers to keep the public interests front and center, not the profits of the energy industry.
I found it mind-boggling that Cheney would count Iraq as part of the coalition. The theory of the adminstartion has been we needed a coalition to liberate Iraq because Iraq could not liberate itself. Or am I missing something? Alawi doesn't count. He was appointed by the US, not democratically elected. We can say that a war torn Iraq, that is on the verge of civil war, is a nation and an ally only after it has a democratically elected government that voluntarily asks us to stay. But to count Alawi's endorsement is absurd. Would Cheney regard Vichy France as an ally of Hitler because Marshall Petain was pro-Nazi? No. We called deGaulle the spokeman for France, and didn't count the word of someone who was installed by an occupying power. Until it is clear who speaks for Iraq, I think Bush and Cheney ought to go lightly here. It is, after all, Iraqi insurgents who are doing much of the fighting against our troops. Nobody is denying the herosim of those Iraqis willing to join the Iraqi security and police. But so far, they are not a credible fighting force by any one's estimation, and not ready to be an ally like Britain or other forces in the coalition. Edwards was right to call Cheney out on this.
Chenmey scored a lot of points by shamelessly criticizing in others that whihc he and Bush are guilty of themselves. Flip flopper is only the most obvious. Bush has fli floped back and forth on the patient bill of rights three or five times since he was governor of Texas. He vetoed it in Texas, then claimed credit for it after it passed over his veto; then promised it in his presidential campaign nationally, then tried to undermine it as president. His talk of tort reform aims at the very heart of the patient bill of rights. Edwards was right to call him out on this.
But look at Cheney. He landed a solid punch in criticizing Edwards attendance record, until you looked at Cheney's. Cheney had the worse attendance record. Here are the facts and the source:
Dick Cheney Attended Only One Public Hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. But as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence from 1985 to his nomination as Secretary of Defense in early 1989, then-Representative Dick Cheney (R-Wyo.) attended only one public committee hearing - a 1986 meeting on potential U.S. military involvement in Angola. [Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Government Printing Office Hearing Reports; Washington Post, 2/7/85; Los Angeles Times, 3/11/89]
And Edwards called out Cheney, again rightly, for his hypocricy in criticizing Kerry for voting against the same weapon systems, at the same period of time, that Cheney recommended against.
If we judge Bush and Cheney by the same standards by which they judge others, Bush and Cheney come out worse. And by the standards of basic honesty and candor, Bush and Cheney come out far worse.
I give Cheney credit for a tough fight. But on the issues, Edwards won the debate.
