Posted on 10/05/2004 11:26:39 PM PDT by kattracks
JOHN Edwards' imper sonation of an attack dog in last night's debate was a little like watching a yapping terrier taking on an old Golden retriever. Dick Cheney was calm, collected, thoughtful and incapable of being ruffled.Edwards had his talking points down pat. He came out of the box with a tough attack on Cheney, claiming, "You are still not being straight with the American people" on the question of Iraq.
That was just his opening act. He followed with 90 minutes of harsh attacks in which he questioned the judgment, integrity and truthfulness of both Cheney and President Bush. He lived up to his reputation as a silver-tongued trial lawyer — but, in the end, he simply couldn't close the stature gap with personal attacks.
What the vice presidential debate showed was that clever quips and overdone charges are no substitute for strong leadership and a lifetime of experience in public service and public policy.
Cheney scored a number of direct hits on Kerry-Edwards. Most important, he put Edwards on the defensive by immediately putting Kerry's 20-year Senate record on national security issues back in play.
[snip]
But it was Cheney's listing of Edward's sorry attendance record on the Intelligence Committee and on the Senate floor that seemed to take Edwards aback — as did the devastating comment that in nearly four years presiding over the Senate, Cheney had never met Edwards until last night. It was clear the young senator was caught off guard without a prepared quip.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Got to these websites and be sure to vote.
//www.msnbc.msn.com/ Chaney losing.
http://www.foxnews.com/ Chaney losing.
http://abcnews.go.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml
I thought one of Edwards' most bizzarre comments was the thing about how a thirty year resume doesn't mean you have the wisdom or qualifications to be President. Or something like that. He said it twice. The first time he said it I thought he was talking about John 'effin. Cheney had just been railing on Kerry's record and Edwards came out and said that, and my thought was that he was agreeing with him--that Kerry's long career in the Senate didn't mean he was qualified.
Was I the only one that found this comment odd?
I'm telling you guys, the left is going to rip Cheney for that "never met Edwards" comment with that picture.
See link below
http://p089.ezboard.com/fbadgermaniacsfrm15.showMessage?topicID=520.topic
This man is no Tarheel! He must be one of those South Carolinians impersonating a genuine Tarheel!!! ;-)
If they do, they're just have to accept that maybe their boy isn't memorable.
Yeah so it was a ceremonial occasion. Did Little Johnny ever do anything to get himself noticed? If he and John F*ckin' have one thing in common, its the absence of distinguished service in the world's pre-eminent deliberative body.
Headline should read, Edwards Overpaid.
That is both for his current job as Senator where he never shows up, and for his job as trial liar. The man made millions for doing nothing productive, while brave men fight all over the world keeping him safe and make 25K if they are lucky. Productive men build things. Build bridges, tunnels, roads, buildings. And these men, while they may earn a good salary don't earn millions using false science and getting their nails buffed.
I looked at the picture--it doesn't show that Cheney even saw Edwards, much less met him or even spoke to him. The DUmmies are going to have to do a lot better than this.
Interesting debating point:
I thought Cheney did not use his time to the utmost as he declined to use his 30 seconds to defend Haliburton or the GOP position on gay marriage. Now I understand it was pure genius and pure self-discipline to allow Edwards's cheap shots to stand as a price for keeping the debate on the most advantageous issues: the war on terror and the war in Iraq. That took ba**s!
It is becoming more and more obvious, Edwards got clubbed like a baby seal. Cheney's comment about never having met Edward until tonight was a dagger. This was the "you're no Jack Kennedy" of the debate. The pundits efforts to try to 'prove' that Cheney was in the same room with Edwards in the past don't change the rhetorical impact. And since Clinton proved that you can be 'alone' and still be with somebody, it will be hard to disprove anyways.
Let them. It only goes to show Senator Gone was hardly ever in the Senate doing his job! Pointing out a prayer breakfast three years ago after being chastised for missing many critical votes in the Senate only emphasizes that he wasn't there doing his elected job!!!
I missed the live broadcast but I just caught a replay. I just hope they have whoever coached Cheney coaching Bush now. He kicked the crap out of Edwards.
Hopefully this heralds a new debate strategy. All Bush needs to do is stick with the facts.
The Boston Herald's Mike Barnicle: "I Thought That Cheney Came Incredibly Well Prepared. Very Substantive, The Research That He Had Done--The Opposition Research Was Clearly Top Shelf. He Has, For That Format, An Amazingly, Amazingly Familiar Way About Him. It Was As If He Was There With Dr. Phil Being Interviewed. For A Guy Whose Reputation Is So Dark, So Brooding, He Was Very Comfortable, I Think, To The American Television Audience." (MSNBC's "After Hours," 10/6/04)
Isn't the "opposition" usually considered the party OUT of office?
I thought perhaps you were correct, at first. Upon further reflection, that simply sets up an even better rejoiner, i.e. "Perhaps he was there, and I'm sorry, I just didn't notice him. I didn't recall any votes he participated in, nor any legislation he authored. Of course, I could be wrong.."
Puts the onus in the correct location, i.e. Edwards sorry butt. Make Edwards defend his 5.5 wasted years in the Senate, and even better, Kerry's 20 some years as well. You see, this is the one, single point I've been screaming about (to myself). Kerry, and now Edwards rant about "Bush lied", they rant about everything that has gone wrong, but they have done nothing in the past 3.5 years to make a difference in the War on Terror (i.e. true Islam).
Edwards and Kerry hold rather special offices. They are one of 100 U.S. Senators, and Kerry is a tenured committee chairman. They aren't "Mr.", but "Senator". The could have been down on the floor of the Senate, pushing legislation and "Sense of the Senate" resolutions, every day for the past 1400 or so days of Bush's Presidency. They may not have won everything, but they would have made an impact, if only they were at their jobs, working in the Senate. Neither did. They did nothing for 3.5 years but talk, and no amount of talking now will convince most Americans that they have "a plan", much less that they can execute on their intentions.
Kerry and Edwards are truely dangerious, naievely idealistic, leftists.
SFS
1) Edwards wasn't bothering to show up to do his job in the Senate.
2) Edwards is not worth remembering.
If the rats were smart, they would simply ignore this debate.
Edwards brought a knife to a gunfight. While VP Cheney listened patiently, almost paternally to the Senator's whoppers, fibs and flat out lies.
Then politely b**ch slapped the young upstart time and again.
Altogether, one of the best VP debates I've heard in quite awhile. Even when Gwen Ifill tried so hard to throw grenades Cheney's way. That were easily deflected.
Jack.
Good point. I suspect that poor little flustered Edwards was using the wrong talking point at the wrong time.
What is more important, a Senator's performance of his duty or remembering a couple of trivial path crossings? Let the left spin it. In fact, let them jump up and spin on it.
No, they are not.
They have a picture of him in a ROOM with Cheney from February 1, 2003, and that's GOOD for Edwards?
Think again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.