A North Carolinian in Darth Cheney's Court

Everyone knows which side of the fence I'm on. I have Democrat on my Voter's Registration card, my mom, my dad, my girlfriend and most of my friends (at least those who are human--har har) are Democrats. However, unlike some of the spin doctors, and some of the die hard, fanatical Dems in the party I cannot disregard my senses and my reasoning for the greater good of my party. I like to tell it like I see it and what I saw last night was a well intentioned, stalwart, and feisty John Edwards beaten in the 2004 Vice-presidential debate by the experienced incumbent Dick Cheney.

Many adjectives, describing the debate, have flown in the headlines in the last twelve hours. One of most popular has been 'nasty,' which was the New York Daily News' cover page headline. I'd have preferred the words 'experienced' or 'prepared,' because that really is what this debate boiled down to--'nasty' is what a vice-presidential debate is supposed to be. It's like calling a boxing match 'brutal;' if it wasn't brutal then it was borning.

Unlike his boss (if you can call GWB that) Cheney was composed, yet loose, quick to stay on topic and flexible to not only block any Edwards' thrusts, but to counter with rebuttals of his own. In fact most of the time Edwards, too set on presenting the Democratic platform, seemed grounded in delivering a speech rather than a debate. On Iraq, Edwards hung back on questions asked by the moderator, trying to hammer in the points that Saddam had no connection to 9/11 and few, if any, connections to Al-Qaeda. Cheney steamrolled over these points in a way the President couldn't, he stated facts, which though debatable, was delivered with frankness and calmness. Edwards, too stuck in his set statements was not quick enough to foil his opponent's challenges, instead repeating statements such as:

"Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq the American people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day. "

After the first time, or the second time, we understand your statement--however when you continue to hark upon the same statement it begins to sound programmed, and unauthentic. Within the first five minutes of the debate you stated all that you needed to, or all that you had, regarding the connections, or lack of, between Iraq and terrorism. At that moment curtness would have been in your favor, because restating does not get you points.

On domestic issues Cheney once again was not authoritatively challenged. Edwards seemed to stop his attack at sound bites and political blurbs. For example when asked:

"Senator Kerry said in a recent interview that he absolutely will not raise taxes on anyone under who earns under $200,000 a year. How can he guarantee that and also cut the deficit in half, as he's promised?"

Edwards response was:

"To pay for the things that we believe need to be done... what we're going to do is roll back tax cuts.

"And I want everyone to hear this, because there have been exaggerations made on the campaign trail: Roll back tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year; we will do that.
We want to keep the tax cuts that are in place for people who make less than $200,000 a year and give additional tax cuts to those middle-class families, tax cuts for health care, tax cuts to help families pay for their college tuition, tax cuts for child care.

"These families are struggling and hurting, and they need more tax relief, not less tax relief.
But to help get us back on the path to a balanced budget, we also want to get rid of some of the bureaucratic spending in Washington.

"One of the amazing things that's happened is the VP actually layered on more supervisory people, people at the supervisory level, in this government.

"We also want to close some corporate loopholes.

"Now, I want to be honest with people. We can't eliminate this deficit. People have heard that over and over and over in four years. We cannot do it. We're in too deep a hole.
But we can cut the deficit in half. And if we move, we can move this country back on a path to fiscal responsibility."

Once again Edwards is feeding us soft rhetoric instead of new ideas. Yes, we all know that the Bush tax cuts, along with the insane spending on the war aren't good for America. But telling us what you think we want to hear, and telling us about "more tax relief" isn't offering us a new solution. I would have been happy if you had said more about what corporate loopholes you would close or--oh my God!--a tax hike on those who earn more than 200,000$ a year. When you play for high stakes you must ante just as high, and trying to play both sides of the issue is not going to be the way to win the election this year. A response like this isn't going to change anyone's mind to your side (remember Bush is also offering--and gave--tax cuts) but it also opened you up to an unblocked barrage from Cheney, which he deserved to get since, with all things being equal, his administration gave tax cuts, while Kerry and Edwards voted against them.

This was not the only issue Edwards tried to straddle the fence on--Gay marriage was also on that agenda. This idea that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman--but I think they should have equal rights as partners." tells us nothing. If you are going to address the point either take a stance or do like Cheney, who...sigh...I can't believe I'm saying this, handled it with class by not addressing it--moonwalking across what could have been a significant pitfall.

And there were the openings that Edwards completely missed. For instance this comment that Cheney made regarding 'unilateral sanctions' against Iran during his tenure as the CEO of Halliberton:

"What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies."

At this moment Edwards had a chance to crush Cheney--after all, what he's saying here basically is "hey, if everyone is stealing, and I don't steal, then I'm losing cash. Better to be with the rest of the world doing something unethical and profit, than doing the right thing." Which is interesting since this administration continues its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, while the rest of the world deals with the communist country. Edwards should have called Cheney out for his ethical flip flopping, and hypocrisy rather than continue to hark on the VP's connection with Halliburton, which he had previously stated. This is a good example of what I mean about flexibility in debates, and how sticking to a set plan can get you into more problems than solutions.

However, in criticizing my candidate I don't mean that I feel that Edwards performance was without merit. Edwards, through repetition, set a platform for Kerry's next debate that Bush will be hard pressed to face. That being the lack of connections between Saddam and 9/11, and Al-Qaeda, the corruption of Halliburton, and the fact that Bin Laden is still at large. These are the key strengths of the Democratic ticket, and it will have to be hammered home by Kerry. After all, as James Carvelle might say "It's the war stupid!" All us Dems can hope is that our nominee can make that point without sounding like an answering machine.

PS: Did any one notice that Edwards kept saying that they were going to kill the terrorists? I mean over and over it was kill, kill, kill! Who are we looking for? Bin Laden or Bill?