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 ...
ping
another Steyn ping--this one has some really funny parts
Ping
very funny bits about Edwards
thanks for the full posting, friend! :-)
Ya gotta love Mark Steyn.
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.