The Texas Telegraph

« Critical Markup : Presidential Debate #1 | Main | Astros and Braves Adrenaline Match »

October 07, 2004

Critical Markup : The Vice Presidential Debate

I now continue with my critical markup of the 2004 Presidential Race and Debates with the Vice Presidential Debate that was held on October 5th. Although both candidates weren't perfect, Vice President Cheney clearly had the upper hand.

Let's All Be Nervous, Shall We?

What is it with the candidates and the wiggle worms? Cheney had the annoying hand wringing habit going for him, while Edwards kept pointing and gesturing at Gwen like she was the wayward American who didn't know any better. I'd like to see a little more stately deportment from now on guys. Is that too much to ask? What's with the nervous wiggling and pointing and obviously uncomfortable sitting positions? Maybe the University just had uncomfortable seats, so I will just let that slide. Wiggle away boys.

Get Him, Boy!

Vice President Cheney is of course, a very experienced and wise leader. He is a realist, and he does not ramble off on emotional hogwash or play upon the emotions of the audience. However, he does have his share of problems, just like Edwards, Kerry, and Bush. I go back to what I said before, that all politicians are just human, and they all have faults. Having said all that, let me say that you've got to pick the one who conducts themselves honorably in the political circuit, and the one who has the best political record for the job.

Cheney really could use a little more looseness. Smiling never hurt anyone, and if he could crack a nice smile now and then, he'd do better. He has a great smile, because I've seen it. Shocking huh? Cheney needed to loosen up, quit glaring at Edwards, and be more personable. The basic flaw of Cheney is that he acted aloof and kind of strained. However, in basic intellect and facts, he was very good. He delivered answers that were to the point (except for the education rabbit trail instead of jobs), and he cracked down on Edwards. He challenged Edwards capacity to lead, his shoddy Senate record, and the fact that Edwards is in many cases not correct. He was sharp, to the point, succinct, and polite as far as a political debate can go. I was especially impressed with how he answered the question of how he was qualified to lead this country if anything happened to the President. He is clearly someone that can lead and one America could depend on in an hour of trial.

Let me explain this. In a political debate, attacking a person's political and public record is completely acceptable in my eyes. I'd expect Kerry to do it to Bush, Edwards to do it to Cheney, and vice versa. In a political race it is absolutely crucial to scrutinize every candidate's public record. This is the highest job in the world, and we can't afford any mistakes just because we didn't inspect a candidate's record and qualities to lead. It is not necessary to go off on a person's personal or private life to do this, and if one stays on politics, political and public records, and the candidate's truthfulness and leadership, it is perfectly in line with what is at stake. If we look at what is at stake, we'd be fools not to "attack" someone's political record. I actually despise the term "personal attacks" when it comes to this important matter. I call it "challenging" the other candidate's record. Sure, it's far from feeling comfortable or friendly, but it is absolutely necessary.

Edwards does it, Kerry does it, Bush does it, and so does Cheney. It's not only necessary, but healthy for America. To all those who cry foul at these exchanges, I say that they are focusing on something that isn't even an issue. It's not a "personal" attack. It's a political and intellectual "challenge". Of course, I do realize that in this debate, there were several personal attacks, and I condemn those, but for the majority of what people are calling attacks, I see no ground for complaint. It's politics, so get over it.

Cheney did attack Edwards for not paying all of his taxes and doing shady deals so he wouldn't have to. I have no clue whether that's true or not, but it was unnecessary on Cheney's part to say that. Is it even possible for anyone to act like a gentleman for at least an hour and a half? I'm wondering. I might also point out that Cheney kind of overdosed on the political "challenging". It was kind of pointless because Edwards was making a fool out of himself without any help. So, it made Cheney look bad because the barbs weren't really needed. Let Edwards sink his own ship.

Edwards Falls Apart.

Edwards was flawless as far as public relations went. He was relaxed, natural, and extremely personable. His rhetoric and delivery were immaculate as were his emotional appeals to the audience and their emotions. Edwards is clearly an idealist and one who relies heavily on emotional appeal instead of clean facts and a straightforward approach. He answered the questions head on, and with great willingness, but that didn't help his view on issues. He delivered well, but what he had to deliver wasn't any different than what Kerry had to deliver. In fact, it was almost identical, I'd say.

Edwards is clearly lost without Kerry. It makes one wonder if Edwards was sort of forced into running with Kerry. It's almost like Edwards wants to stick with what Kerry believes, because he is lost without him. I got the impression that Edwards is halfheartedly running a race he wishes he was running with someone else. He used the phrase "Kerry and I" over and over, like it was his magical lifeline. When asked to explain what he believed and stood for without mentioning Kerry's name, he couldn't do it, and broke the rule twice while laughing stiffly. "Har har, I broke the rule! Anyway, Kerry and I believe.." Edwards kept hiding under Kerry's skirts and repeated Kerry's debate text from Thursday almost verbatim many times.

He started sounding like a broken record way before the night was finished. Not only did he hide under Kerry's platform, Edwards couldn't even tell the American people how he would be qualified should the need arise to be President of the United States. He instead launched into a big praise campaign of how worthy Kerry was to be President, and that he was certain that they would win. Well, there's your answer Gwen. If John Kerry died or was incapacitated, Edwards is going to wring his hands and talk about John Kerry. He couldn't lead this country out of a wet paper bag. Oh yes, I forgot. He has been on "numerous committees" in the Senate. I wonder how many meetings he actually attended? How many days could we expect him to be Vice President and not be absent?

That brings up the sordid record of his Senate attendance. He said he was shocked Cheney would try to challenge his record, but he didn't try to defend himself or explain why he was absent. Look here. Missing that many sessions of the Senate is serious, very serious. That's not a personal attack, that's the truth. If you can't attend more than a handful of Senate sessions, what qualifies you to be Vice President? That's a serious and weighty question! That's no attack, I'd call it common sense!

Edwards loves to harp on healthcare. Fact is, both he and Kerry were absent when it came time to vote on the Medicare Reform Bill. Isn't that interesting?

Edwards is really proud of the fact that he has stood for families that have been hurt by big corporations. I support that, and I think it both tragic and maddening that Valerie Lakey was permanently injured by a silly company's failure to warn about the defect. I stand with her family against big corporations and am one of the biggest consumer advocates that there is, but that doesn't solve the problem of trial lawyers and skyrocketing malpractice insurance. More and more high risk patients are turned away and have to settle for low end doctors and even more heartbreak follows because they didn't have a good doctor. All because of high insurance. You would think that the last thing America would be short on would be good doctors. However, it's sadly becoming the norm, as more doctors lay down their license and retire or go into a different field.

Edwards said "John Kerry and I are always going to stand with the Valerie Lakeys of the world, and not with the insurance companies." Yeah, but not the one million babies aborted each year. What about them John? Who will plead for their sake? Cut the emotional trash, because you're just as hard hearted as any of those abortion doctors.

Then about 35 minutes into the debate, Edwards latched on to Haliburton. Oh, come on! I'll bet Kerry hit his head, because that is the most off target piece of tripe that they ever tried. It didn't work, and it isn't true. However, Edwards gestured with his hands and, blinking wildly, said "These are the facts....." He lied, which is kind of obvious, but I thought I'd point that out for the adrenaline rush of the moment. Doesn't he read or research? Come on Edwards, that was lame. That was a feeble attempt to retaliate against your shoddy Senate record. Nice try, but no cigar.

Then he made a big emotional slop about Cheney and his lesbian daughter. I'm sorry Edwards, but in my book, that's not going to float. You didn't have to do that. It is absolutely the lowest of the low to air that sensitive and delicate family affair out into the open like that. Let's be decent for a change, if you're so noble! Not only did he make a public shame of Cheney and his family, but he did it in an attempt to make Cheney look heartless and show how he, Mr. Edwards Bleeding Heart, was understanding. "I know they love their daughter....." What was his point? Trying to make someone look bad? That was just low. That's the lowest cut I've seen in a political debate yet. Cut the trash talk, Edwards, and talk about politics!

Edwards must not be much of a lawyer. He thinks that states are going to be allowed to define marriage amongst themselves, and that they won't be forced to recognize another state's marriage. That's just not realistic. Sooner or later, it's going to come to a Constitutional issue of what constitutes marriage. With so many gay couples wanting to get hitched, it's bound to come up. Edwards is walking on hot air if he thinks that's going to work, and it's unrealistic.

Can't we just be a little more creative when it comes to attacking the decision of this administration to declare war on Iraq? How many times did I hear Edwards say that "We were attacked , but not by Hussein, or Iraq!" It's the Kerry and Edwards pet phrase of the hour. They think it really solves everything. Well, it doesn't and what's more, they are attacking Roosevelt's resolve, as well as every one of our brave World War II veterans. I'd like to take this moment to point out that when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, we weren't attacked by Hitler. However, when we declared war on Pearl Harbor, we also did the same thing to Germany. Germany didn't attack us, but they were part of the threat, so we played it safe and went after them all at once. That's what we're doing today. Read much history, Mr. Edwards?

How about a little rewind of your views? As I recall, you said "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." Say, is that true? Wow, I'd certainly never expect you to retract such a strong view! However, you're saying the exact opposite today. I can't say I blame you, because you've had an excellent example.

Of course, how could anyone overlook your amateur efforts to appeal to the people's emotions? All that bleeding soul, I-know-what-it-is-to-miss-a-loved-one-and-to-have-an-empty-chair-at-the-dinner-table vibe. Yes, we miss our loved ones. We pray for their safety, and we hate war just as much as you do. However, how can America defeat her enemies if there aren't any empty chairs at the tables? We've always had empty chairs, and we will continue to. We've come through it before , and we'll come through it now. Empty chairs mean that there are people who are willing to protect America, and it shows just how strong we are. We've come this far, the least we can is respect our empty chairs and pray for the occupant's safe return.

America's light is flickering? I don't think so, and if you think so, you'd best not say anything about it. A flickering light means that it is still aflame.

Why don't you take your emotional blather and author Chicken Soup for the Politician's Soul? It would be a lot better than having a cut-rate, second-class, last ditch carpetbagger in the Oval Office.

Whew! I'm out. *ding*

Posted by Grant at October 7, 2004 12:38 PM

Comments

Posted by: Tara at October 7, 2004 01:37 PM

Posted by: Willow at October 7, 2004 06:29 PM

Posted by: Josiah Mackenzie at October 8, 2004 10:33 AM

Posted by: Grant at October 8, 2004 11:23 AM

Posted by: Sarah at October 10, 2004 12:17 PM

Posted by: Grant at October 11, 2004 11:20 AM

Posted by: Sarah at October 12, 2004 04:26 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: