Posted on 10/09/2004 5:21:14 AM PDT by quidnunc
In the vice presidential debate, Republicans thought Dick Cheney won and Democrats thought John Edwards won. I can understand both those judgments. In the first presidential debate, however you measured it, George W. Bush performed badly. But in the clash of veeps it was as if each contestant was playing his own game: One guy was playing a tennis match, the other football. If you thought you were watching the Super Bowl, the football guy was clearly the winner. If you thought you were at Wimbledon, the tennis guy was serving aces.
One way to understand their isolation from each other is to picture each one trying the other's game. Imagine John Edwards gruffly running through cool hard-realist evaluations of just the facts, ma'am. Imagine Dick Cheney wallowing in mawkish hardscrabble anecdotes about his impoverished dad sitting at the kitchen table. In fact, Cheney had an impoverished dad, he just doesn't flaunt him the way Edwards does. I loved Cheney's performance because I think he's in tune with the times: grown-up, unflashy, deadly serious. Edwards, on the other hand, driveling on like a Depression-era sob sister about the ''bright light'' of America now ''flickering'' is one of the funniest acts I've seen. I thought he was supposed to be a slick ambulance-chaser, like Richard Gere in ''Chicago,'' but apparently he prefers the Little Mary Sunshine role.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
We must exterminate evil and not merely be content to hold the line in the forlorn hope the enemy will not attack. The initiative should never be his; it should be ours. Charge!
Another brilliant Steyn!
Cheney was not deadly serious. Anyone who know him would see that he was laughing ...
-- in the event of John Kerry being felled by a grisly windsurfing tragedy --
I like this extract of his column tomorrow in the Telegraph: "The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?"
There are enough coats available at Protestant Church rummage sales in America to clothe all of China. Everyone knows this.
thank you for the post...
nick
Cheney was classic. I wasn't reminded so much of football, but a seasoned warrior saying, "This is how the big dogs walk son."
God bless Mark Steyn! To me, he's like a political Alan-a-dale, able to cherrily breeze in good times and still get serious and still sound good in hard ones. We're in hard times, politically, due to the Dims willingness to seek power by any means necessary, and if they would only read Mark it might focus them to a reasonable opposition.
Just my two cents on topics long since reduced to common knowledge.
Cheers!
"unctuous and oleaginous as Edwards"
Man, you gotta love this guy.
I thought that was a great a line too...
John-Boy Edwards...snicker...daddy watches Sesame Street...snicker....
Edwards has a little growing up to do
October 10, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
In the vice presidential debate, Republicans thought Dick Cheney won and Democrats thought John Edwards won. I can understand both those judgments. In the first presidential debate, however you measured it, George W. Bush performed badly. But in the clash of veeps it was as if each contestant was playing his own game: One guy was playing a tennis match, the other football. If you thought you were watching the Super Bowl, the football guy was clearly the winner. If you thought you were at Wimbledon, the tennis guy was serving aces.
One way to understand their isolation from each other is to picture each one trying the other's game. Imagine John Edwards gruffly running through cool hard-realist evaluations of just the facts, ma'am. Imagine Dick Cheney wallowing in mawkish hardscrabble anecdotes about his impoverished dad sitting at the kitchen table. In fact, Cheney had an impoverished dad, he just doesn't flaunt him the way Edwards does. I loved Cheney's performance because I think he's in tune with the times: grown-up, unflashy, deadly serious. Edwards, on the other hand, driveling on like a Depression-era sob sister about the ''bright light'' of America now ''flickering'' is one of the funniest acts I've seen. I thought he was supposed to be a slick ambulance-chaser, like Richard Gere in ''Chicago,'' but apparently he prefers the Little Mary Sunshine role.
I don't care about Edwards' dad and his heartwarming, sepia-hued vignettes any more than I cared about the mythical ''coatless girl'' he used to cite in his primary speeches: a wee shivering thing whose coatlessness was supposedly a result of Bush-Cheney reducing her parents to poverty. I offered to buy a coat for any authentically coatless girl the campaign managed to produce. Not the most generous offer on my part -- girls' winter coats are $9.99 at Wal-Mart -- but the Edwards camp never took me up on it. Do you recognize this Dickensian image of America? It's true there are some folks who are having a tough time finding work in certain Rust Belt states. In 2003, the U.S. unemployment rate was 6 percent, which is considered high. In Canada it was 7.8 percent; France 9.7 percent; Germany 10.5 percent -- and in the last two cases these levels are permanent features of the landscape, as they would be in America if the Democrats ever get the opportunity to impose the Franco-German high-cost social welfare/government health care system John Kerry admires so much. America's ''bright light'' isn't ''flickering.'' It's Europe where the lights are about to go out, permanently.
So, when John Edwards starts doing his John-Boy Walton routine, I say put a sock in it. If necessary, borrow a sock from the coatless girl, if her dad hasn't sold her socks to raise the trolley-car fare to send her for an interview for the chimney sweep's job at the robber baron's mansion on the other side of town.
I think the Edwards smarmarama is ridiculous. It's all about oil, as the anti-war lefties say, and on Tuesday night the oiliness was practically oozing through the TV screen and all over the floor. If every Democratic candidate was as unctuous and oleaginous as Edwards, gas would be 50 cents a gallon and we could tell the Saudis to go to hell.
But, for all the press raves Edwards gets, real hard votes have been hard to come by. In primary season, he was the insurgent who never insurged; his smarmy condescension was regarded as a winning act by the media bigshots because that's how they treat the American people, too. But, with the exception of second place in Iowa, he was a bust.
And yet, if you're as invested as the Democrats are in reconstructing the cardboard facade of Sept. 10, I can understand why you'd think Pretty Boy did a grand job last Tuesday. That's what my tennis/football analogy boils down to: One team's playing by Sept. 11 rules, the others are running a Sept. 10 campaign. I find it hard to believe that 51 percent of folks in states totaling 270 electoral votes are willing to cast a delusional ballot to return to the fictions of Sept. 10. But, if they are, so be it. If a majority of Americans want to pretend that the U.N. isn't a sewer of corruption and that the French are America's allies, not Saddam's, well, we'll just have to live with the consequences.
Asked about his qualifications to be vice president and thus -- in the event of John Kerry being felled by a grisly windsurfing tragedy -- president and commander in chief, John Edwards talked about what ''the American people want in their president and in their vice president.'' First, he said, ''they want to know that their president and their vice president will keep them safe.''
Oh, phooey. That would be a neat line if the American people had all got lead-poisoning and hired you to file the all-time class-action suit on their behalf. But no president can guarantee safeness in unsafe times. What he can do is demonstrate the necessary will to roll back the threat and exterminate it, and encourage the American people to maintain that resolve, too -- as Churchill did in Britain's darkest hour, after the fall of France and with German invasion imminent, when he told the people ''you can always take one with you.'' In time of war, free peoples don't stay free if they look to a smooth-talking shyster-president to shelter them in the embrace of the nanny-state.
The strongest force in international affairs is inertia. It's everywhere: a continuous pressure from the U.N., the EU, the Chinese, the Arab League, the State Department and half the federal bureaucracy to do nothing about anything -- do nothing about the Sudanese genocide until everyone's dead, do nothing about Iran's nuclear program until it's complete and the silos are loaded, do nothing about anything except hold meetings and issue statements of concern. To resist the allure of inertia will require enormous will, not just from the president but from the American people. After the vice presidential debate, it was said by many on the right that Dick Cheney came over as the grown-up and John Edwards as the callow youth. But that goes for the audience too. Cheney treated the American people as grown-ups, Edwards condescended to the electorate as a nation of coatless girls. He's wrong, I hope.
Great column. I loved the riff on the coatless girl going on the trolly to be the chimneysweep for the robber baron.
Look at almost every news thread on FR (Aziz dying, Mt. St. Helens erupting, job creation) and you can attach the following as comments:
It's Bush's Fault!!
The timing of this is suspicious!
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to fix this!
Just tailor the exact words to the story, and it works! Take the Florida Hurricanes:
The timing of this is suspicious (because it allows Bush to look Presidential)
It's President Bush's Fault! (because his environmental policies caused global warming)
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to prevent hurricanes from ever striking Florida again! (no proof or details ever required; stating they have a plan stops hurricanes, cures cancer and finds a husband for every single woman out there).
Amen.
Did anyone actually believe that little anecdote about Edwards' father watching late night tv to learn Math?
Is there any way to fact check that little tidbit?
More than a little, in my estimation.
"One team's playing by Sept. 11 rules, the others are running a Sept. 10 campaign. I find it hard to believe that 51 percent of folks in states totaling 270 electoral votes are willing to cast a delusional ballot to return to the fictions of Sept. 10. But, if they are, so be it."
This is what's starting to worry me. It is clear that, despite all rhetoric confusing or otherwise, what Kerry is really promising is a return to Sept. 10th and the world of yesteryear. He's already tired of fighting the terrorists and he'd like to have tea parties with the Euros again, and a little trip to the theatre with the North Koreans a la Madeline Albright.
It will be Carter redux if we go with Kerry and I only hope there are enough people in America smart enough to realize this.
The MSM is keeping the truth from the American public...France is NOT an ally. AT least not one of ours...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.