Cheney's the Man Bush Could Never Be
After adamantly stating all day that there was no way in hell I was going to watch another debate this election, I happened to be flipping channels at the beginning of it, so I had to watch. My first impression was that somebody made a mistake and switched the positions of the tickets. Clearly, Cheney and Edwards should be running for President and Bush and Kerry should be running for VP, as their completely unimpressive nature reflects the VP’s lack of any and all actual responsibility.
Edwards could have taken Kerry any day in a debate, or a fistfight (whatever floats your boat). He had more facts, a stronger position, an actual position, intelligent presentation with actual evidence to back his positions. Sure, he had to recycle a few of Kerry’s classic lines and defend his ticket’s position(?) on Iraq, but otherwise, I was impressed with the man. He’d have my vote if he would have given up on trying to accuse Bush of flip-flopping and if he would have said anything substantive about Kerry’s plan for Iraq.
Of the four men on the ballot, however, Cheney should be the next President, hands down. Bush is an incompetent moron with leadership skills that don’t qualify him for anything higher than mid-level management at McDonalds, whereas Cheney clearly possessed much more. He could speak intelligently. He had a quick wit, quick answers, thorough answers, and evidence beyond personal interest stories that the other three guys seem to love. He could back up all of his positions clearly with facts and easily refuted everything Edwards threw at him.
I was impressed with a number of things that happened in the debate.
1) It wasn’t a rehash of campaign slogans like the Presidential debate
2) Both candidates used evidence to back their attacks on the other, instead of twisted logic (Kerry) and attacks you might hear out of a second-grader’s mouth at recess (Bush).
3) Edwards (almost) fully effectively made the case against the Iraq war and if he would have conceded just a few things to Cheney while pushing the issue, he would have fully done so.
4) Cheney (almost) fully made the case for the war in Iraq, but without the smoking gun WMDs, it wasn’t going to happen. He can’t rationalize it to the American people, because the American people don’t understand the complexities of the region or the importance of the oil therein as politicians must understand it, and because that doesn’t sound good.
5) Both of them talked about the economy, jobs, healthcare, and issues besides Iraq.
Props to those guys. May whoever wins the election die quickly for the sake of our country. =/
Edwards could have taken Kerry any day in a debate, or a fistfight (whatever floats your boat). He had more facts, a stronger position, an actual position, intelligent presentation with actual evidence to back his positions. Sure, he had to recycle a few of Kerry’s classic lines and defend his ticket’s position(?) on Iraq, but otherwise, I was impressed with the man. He’d have my vote if he would have given up on trying to accuse Bush of flip-flopping and if he would have said anything substantive about Kerry’s plan for Iraq.
Of the four men on the ballot, however, Cheney should be the next President, hands down. Bush is an incompetent moron with leadership skills that don’t qualify him for anything higher than mid-level management at McDonalds, whereas Cheney clearly possessed much more. He could speak intelligently. He had a quick wit, quick answers, thorough answers, and evidence beyond personal interest stories that the other three guys seem to love. He could back up all of his positions clearly with facts and easily refuted everything Edwards threw at him.
I was impressed with a number of things that happened in the debate.
1) It wasn’t a rehash of campaign slogans like the Presidential debate
2) Both candidates used evidence to back their attacks on the other, instead of twisted logic (Kerry) and attacks you might hear out of a second-grader’s mouth at recess (Bush).
3) Edwards (almost) fully effectively made the case against the Iraq war and if he would have conceded just a few things to Cheney while pushing the issue, he would have fully done so.
4) Cheney (almost) fully made the case for the war in Iraq, but without the smoking gun WMDs, it wasn’t going to happen. He can’t rationalize it to the American people, because the American people don’t understand the complexities of the region or the importance of the oil therein as politicians must understand it, and because that doesn’t sound good.
5) Both of them talked about the economy, jobs, healthcare, and issues besides Iraq.
Props to those guys. May whoever wins the election die quickly for the sake of our country. =/
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home