Wednesday, October 06, 2004

‘Second Sight’



After the debate last night I was kind of surprised by the spin on the networks. Apparently nobody saw the debate I did.

The pronouncements – even from the lefties – was that Cheney “wiped the floor” with John Edwards. Well, I doubt that this was the case. But, I’ll defer a bit to the masses and simply convey what it is I witnessed.

Keep in mind that the network people cover these “debates,” know the issues and call the play-by-play on all things political. They think about these things and pontificate about them all of the time. The voters do not behave this way. The voters – especially at this point – look at mannerisms, poise and stature.

On these points Cheney looked old, tired and mean. John Edwards looked fresh and confident.

After the Bush-Kerry debate everyone said that Bush won on “substance” and Kerry won on “style.” I didn’t divide these two points on the Cheney-Edwards debate. Edwards talked about issues close to my heart and Cheney defended policies that have caused misery to untold millions. On substance, I thought, Edwards did as well as on style.

Cheney spent most of the debate rubbing his hands together and holding them close to his face like Mr. Burns in The Simpsons. The affect of it was to muffle his microphone, which was below his face on the desk, and caused his lowered, mumbled voice to sound even more faint and mealy-mouthed.

And, YES, I DID hear what he had to say…

He defended outsourcing.
He defended high insurance rates.
He defended tax breaks for corporations.
He defended his main benefactor, Halliburton.
He defended high drug prices and high health care costs.
He defended mistaken CIA intelligence on Iraq.
He defended the conflicting reports from his own administration.
He defended continuing low wages and no benefits.
He defended the unfunded education policies.

The entire night Dick Cheney defended everything under the Sun, except for one thing: He never defended George W. Bush. Cheney never even mentioned George W. Bush. This was the one thing that the pundits saw that I saw as well. And this was mentioned next to everything they believe they saw Cheney do that I did not.

Oh well.

On who "could have nailed" whom on what? Edwards could have nailed Cheney on the vote to supply our troops in Iraq. Cheney mentioned that the funds were for body armor and protection. Edwards could have said that it was the Bush Administration that sent the troops into harm's way without these things in the first place.

Cheney was smart not to mention AGAIN that unemployed people could scrap a living by selling their possessions on eBay. He also stayed away from his previous contention that if everyone did not re-elect him and Bush they would... all die.

Edwards, for his part, was very aggressive and confident against Cheney. As far as “substance” I thought he mentioned the things that are on the minds of most people, that is to say… he talked about the things that Cheney spent all night defending.

I DID NOT see things the way the pundits and the Bush supporters saw them. I don’t really even think it was a “draw” either. But, I’m just one lonely voice in the blogosphere.

I’m of the opinion that if John Kerry does well against Bush this Friday he can actually put away the election.

That’s my call.

We’ll see if it is the pundits or me who are correct on these finer points when the next slew of polls begin to come out.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home