I honestly expected Edwards to do a lot better, and I think he should have; however, I also don't think he matches well against Cheney. I saw the Shyster versus the Genuine Article.
He also forecast that Kerry would get Germany and France not to contribute troops, but to fulfill the pledges they made to the U.N. regarding training, debt forgiveness, etc.
"Senator, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished," Cheney told Edwards, who looked almost as embarrassed as Quayle looked all those years ago. Cheney continued that Edwards had "one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate" and then delivered the coup de grace.He could have said, "That was uncalled for." Perhaps that lack of response is what separated Edwards from the 1988 Dan Quayle.
Citing his own service as president of the Senate, Cheney told Edwards, "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on this stage tonight." Now there was a zinger likely to stay zung. Edwards had no effective comeback.
Bill sponsor Charlie Rangel proclaimed:
"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft."He voted against his own measure, but he argued that the House should seriously consider the draft.
The White House and the Republicans remain opposed.
Last night was a debate between rhetoric versus substance and substance always wins. John/John are the typical politicians, they point to problems and give generalized solutions that if they were in office, everything would be fixed. Bush fumbled and bumbled the during the first debate. Cheney countered political rhetoric with well seasoned reasoning and facts. If there was any question who actually runs this presidency, it was shown last night.
If there was any question about someone failing to discern the difference between rhetoric and substance, it was the failure of the previous commentator to understand the difference between Kerry's overly slick and smooth con job in the first presidential debate, and President Bush plainly stating facts. If one takes the time to read the transcript (as I did), they would come to no other conclusion except that Bush delivered the goods, Kerry waffled his way through the evening.
Of course it is always more expedient for the lightweight intellectuals among us to embrace their default position which is: 'Bush = dumb, Cheney runs the show' mantra.
But hey - it's Bush-hating on the cheap.