VP Debate Thoughts

First, a moment of silence for Rodney. You may think this is just a cheap trick to generate comments, which it is, but I also feel genuine remorse.

Second, how 'bout them Twins. Yeah, I know, they took the first one from the Yanks last year and dropped the next three. But this year feels different, especially with Carlos Santana on the mound. I knew the guy could play guitar, but who knew he could pitch so well? I predict the Twins in 4. You heard it here first.

Now, onto the debate:

Dick Cheney: "I'd like to respond to that, Gwen, but it will take more than 30 seconds."

Gwen iffil: "That's all you've got."

Voice Inside Gwen iffil's head: "Unless your John Edwards. He is sooo dreamy. It's hard to keep my heart in my chest while he's talking with that melodious voice. Maybe I should have worn the black dress instead of this outfit - he would have taken notice of that. Hey, what is that red light reflecting in his eye - very disturbing - like when someone takes a picture of me and I've got that red-eye thing going on. Oh no! Maybe someone from Halliburton is beaming a laser from outer space right now at John John's eyes to throw him off his game. Oh, wait a minute, my mistake, that is the red light that I am supposed to enforce under the highly unfair rules of the debate. I mean, Cheney and Bush have the right wing press do their bidding for four years, and then they are supposed to get equal time during this thing? Not if I can help it."

I watched a half hour of the debate. Here are some observations, highly partisan of course:

1) Cheney had command of his facts, and delivered them very logically, and at times forcefully. Edwards was well-spoken, but he comes off to me as the self-righteous son to Cheney's more wise role as dad; whereas Cheney was "misleading" the American people - a charge to his character, Edwards simply "had his facts wrong", I reminder from the dad that 17 year olds tend to think they know more than they do.

2) I just find Cheney impressive - the guy never gets rattled. Dems like to hang the CEO charge of Halliburton on him like it is equivalent to joining up Al Queda, but the fact of the matter is that companies don't choose people who aren't good leaders with judgment to head operations. If Halliburton wanted to choose someone for political influence only, why choose Cheney during a Democratic administration? You could have much more influence with Clinton by choosing some reversion-to-the-mean Kennedy. The no-bid contract for Halliburton, by the way, was similar to the one they got for Bosnia under Clinton; it seems that when no other company can do the work, there is no need for a bidding war.

3) I am only going to say this once. Neither Cheney, nor Bush, nor anyone in their administration, nor anyone in Karl Rove's vast right wing conspiracy, has ever ever ever ever said that Saddam was directly involved in planning 9-11. Simple fact - it is a straw man. As Cheney said last night, post 9-11, the administration viewed the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs as the biggest threat facing the US. Iraq was a very likely source for them getting their hands on such material. Ergo, given the fact that Iraq has flaunted nearly every UN mandate for 12 years, and continues to kick out inspectors unless US troops are lined on their borders, it might seem a tad logical that Saddam has been busy outsourcing his WMD disposal to his friendly neighborhood terrorist organization. To Kerry and Edwards, lacking a picture of Saddam handing a brief case over-stuffed with money and small missiles to Osama bin Laden, with a schematic picture of the WTC in flames behind them, Saddam is considered off limits. Except if the political tide makes it seem like the right thing to do, in which case you cast your Senate vote in favor of the war.

But we are supposed to believe that Kerry will pre-emptively go after Iran? Maybe that is what is necessary, but if these guys cannot support a war against a guy with a track record like Saddam, it is hard to imagine they will make any tougher decisions.

4) North Korea - OK, so North Korea is Bush's fault? Clinton sends Carter to North Korea 10 years ago in a perfect example of the reason why diplomacy gets you nothing with third world thugs - Carter gets the "visionary" (his word) leader of NK to sign some piece of paper saying he won't develop nukes and the NYT hails it as diplomacy at its best. Clinton goes back to his full time job, which consisted of round the clock meetings with Carter's terrorist friend Arafat, interrupted ocassionally for a pizza delivery, and forgets about N. Korea. Meanwhile moments after Jimmy Carter leaves the tarmac in Korea, Kim Jong Il is taking the signed agreement down to laboratory in the basement of his palace, and handing it to the mad nuclear scientist suggesting that he use it for kindling the nuclear cocktail. But this is Bush's fault!

5) Here is what I think may happen should Kerry and Edwards get elected. They might just be as tough as Bush and Cheney, although there is more than ample reason to think that they won't given Kerry's record in the Senate. But suppose for a moment the leopard change his spots. If he does the same thing, the press will nevertheless treat it very differently - very favorably in fact, which makes it easier to make bold moves. Rather than every story being about a quagmire, suddenly we'll have personal interest stories about little girls going to school for the first time in Iraq, etc etc.

Think about the "decade of greed" that was the Reagan 1980s, which were followed by additional prosperous years in the 90s under Clinton - Clinton instituted welfare reform, presided over a huge stock market bubble, saw income inequality increase in the US as it did in the 80s, and had a Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers for every Michael Milken from the 80s. So why aren't the 90s the "decade of greed"? If Halliburton really wants to make some money, they might be better off voting for Kerry, who can send them everywhere while the NYT does stories about how Halliburton does the tough gritty work that no one else will do.

5) But then I come to my senses. Kerry, in my eyes, looks to a dying Europe (France and Germany) for approval, which he'll never get. He'll have summits and signed agreements and lots of people involved but no rogue nation will be confronted unless they directly attack us, which they will never do, as they can outsource the war to terrorist organizations they support.

6) As I said, I left the debate after a half hour, but while channel surfing, came across Edwards talking about healthcare, and how consumers are being pinched partially through doctor's passing on expensive malpractice fees in their rates to patients. He says they have a plan to reduce malpractice costs by eliminating frivolous suits. Yeah, that is why the trial lawyers are all lined up right behind him - too many frivolous suits in their eyes!

One of the big cases that Edwards won was precisely that - a frivolous claim of negligence on the part of an OB/GYN who delivered a baby that turned out to have cerebral paulsy. No science to link the difficulty of the birth and the actions of a doctor to the condition of the baby, but who needs science when John Edwards could channel the thoughts of the baby in his closing argument. "I am having trouble now, it is difficult to breathe, you have to get me out of here." That sort of thing, all, we are told, falling on the deaf ears of a callous doctor. But if that doctor had been performing a partial birth abortion? Let's hear you channel that kid's thoughts you sleazy prick!