Last week, I think you would have to search pretty far and wide to find ANYONE who did not think that Kerry won the debate in the first Presidential match-up. Today, I don’t know how to describe the nonsense bubbling up from left-wing blogs.
I know what I saw with my own eyes. Dick Cheney manhandled John Edwards, who was reduced to lying about Halliburton, sputtering, and forgetting the rules of the debate. He was so flustered that every question, he had to spend the first minute re-stating what he had screwed up from the previous question. At one point, I was wondering if Dick Cheney was going to ground Edwards during his closing statement.
Then I read the left-wing press and the blogs.
From the NY Times:
Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy – the area that is supposed to be his weak suit.
What debate did they watch? Edwards was reduced to lying about having Osama cornered (thanks for the policy advice, Michael Moore) and then spent the other half of the foreign policy questions confusing the names Osama and Saddam.
From Matt Yglesias:
To call the more memorable national security section a draw, as the CW does, seems about right to me. Neither side had some kind of devastating, earth-shattering arguments. It comes down to what you think about the world. If the course we’re on right now seems like a good one, then Cheney’s arguments will seem plausible. If not, then, well, not.
So insofar as you’re scoring this like a boxing match — round one, round two, round three, etc. — you come down with a clear win for Edwards. But “draw” is also a plausible description of the dynamics, since they basically fought to a standstill at the emotional high-point of the contest.
Even pretending this was a draw is farcical. The Kerry/Edwards record of equivocation was firmly laid out, and when asked for their ‘plan,’ John Edwards offered precisely what the Bush administration is doing, albeit on an accelerated timeline, and the inclusion of a ‘real’ coalition. Except, of course, one of the main criticisms of the Bush plan is that they are rushing things, and, we should also not forget that there simply is no international will to supply the fictional troops the Kerry/Edwards planm relies on.
From Kevin Drum. Oh, never mind. Drum is as much in the fever swamps as the loons from Atrios, Pandagon, and Oliver. John Edwards could have spit up on himself during the debate and these guys would have loved it, as long as he remembered to call Bush/Cheney liars and make things up about Halliburton.
While liveblogging, one thing Kevin did mock was Cheney’s supposed sorrow over the loss of bipartisanship in Congress:
10:31
Matthew Yglesias
If Cheney “horse-whipped” Edwards then how come CBS’ poll of uncommitted voters had them saying Edwards won? Who’s wearing the blinders here? ABC’s poll was tilted toward Republicans, so Cheney came out as the winner, but afterwards more rather than fewer people said they were inclined to vote for Kerry. Again, who’s wearing the blinders?
ape
Sullivan mentions some others who agreed with him that Cheney got thrashed. THough not ‘roadkill’ as he says.
John Cole
Yeah. I should really pay attention to CBS polls. Snicker.
Jim in Chicago
I heard that CBS’s spot poll of “undecided” voters dates from 1971 and was recently discovered byMary Mapes . Dan Rather did the reporting. Mapes had to check with Joe Lockhart first to find out if the docs were genuine. He said they were. I’m convinced.
I also heard that they used the same undecided voters that NPR recently used — you know the ones that actually donated money to Kerry.
john b
Or maybe they used CNN’s sample of undecided voters who also happened to be Republican activists…
Strawberry Shortcake
John Edwards: My Little Pony, My Little Pony ….
jeff
This is the same Matt yglesias who doesn’t want anything good to happen in Afghanistan because Bush might get credit for it.
He better hope his pseudo-pundit gigs keep paying the bills, because if he ever has to get a job and go out in the real world, he’s toast.
Alex
If you factor out the fact that half of everything Cheney said was a provable lie, then one has to say he did pretty well.
But Cheney sending folks to http://www.factcheck.com was brilliant. Of course, even factcheck.org sided with Edwards on Haliburton.
Plus, those priceless pictures of Cheney shaking hands and debating a man he’s never met — priceless.
But the true loser of last night’s debate was George Bush.
Bloggerhead
John, I feel your pain, I do, inasmuch as you card-carrying members of the Rocketscience Party are caught between the Bonehead and the Bogeyman.
But to compare the debate performances of Bush and Edwards, and their subsequent spins, is guffawable. As I recall, the Right did recognize that Bush performed poorly in the first debate (how could they not?), but as Hindrocket demonstrated last night on NBC, the spin continues that Kerry won on style and Bush on substance. Huh? What substance? That being president is damned hard work, and that you can’t send mixed messages even if your policies are confused?
This was a fine debate, if uneven (I blame Ifill’s strange questions for some the late lull), with points and zingers scored quite equally, and nothing like the genuine horsewhipping of the emperor’s-new-clothes show of Thursday night. And as it turns out, some of Cheney’s best lines (that he’d never met Edwards until last night and that Factcheck.com, which doesn’t exist, had somehow exonerated him and Halliburton) were flat out lies, and are being suitably flogged as I write. (Too, as it turns out, in 2001, when this presidential campaign had yet to commence and the administration was taking vacations in its first year on the job that would make Europeans blush and then ensconcing the VP in his secret lair, Edwards appears to have presided over the Senate more times than the VP.)
As for your view on bipartisanship, taken from that great political, um, junky, Rush, why have you waited until now to reveal this? To allow you to maximize all that politics-ends-at-the-water’s-edge crap you’ve been spouting when it suits you? To prepare us for the eight years of Kerry-hate that you’ll soon commence?
I’ve always regarded you as someone with whom I share some common ground and could find more, even though both of us tend to go over the top at times. Well, me, all the time. I trust that that’s what’s happening here; otherwise, this post is inexplicable, and a little embarrassing…not as embarrassing as your revealing your tiny penis, and hopefully not as revealing either.
anonymous
I was hoping for Cheney to just snap and sucker punch pretty boy Edwards in the face.
No so such luck, I’m afraid.
And it would of felt good too. The thought of Edwards smarmy, smartallect smile wiped of his face makes me feel warm and fuzzy. That he start crying like a little girl would of been an added bonus.
John Cole
Bloggerhead- I don;t agree with much Limbaugh says, but I think his description of bi-partisanship is apt.
At any rate, from my own personal experiences, bi-partisanship is bad. I thnk the Republicans are wrong on a lot of issues. I think the Democrats are wrong on a lot of isssues. Does that mean I should just cut my losses and take 50% good and 50% bad? NO- I root for the Democrats when they get it right, and I root for the Republicans when they get it right.
Bi-partisanship brought us drug laws. Bi-partisanship brought us CFR. Do I need to go on?
I am not sure what the rest of your post meant.
S.W. Anderson
“I know what I saw with my own eyes. Dick Cheney manhandled John Edwards, who was reduced to lying about Halliburton, sputtering, and forgetting the rules of the debate.”
I’ll file this under “Says You,” in my folder labeled “They’re Altering Reality To Suit Themselves Again” folder.
Tamouz
You know what you saw with your own eyes?
Funny, I was saying the same thing to myself. I know what I saw with my own eyes. A slugfest that ended in a draw.
I could say that you’re just as loonie as Sully, who insists that Edwards demolished Cheney.
Or just point out that you both strengthen my argument. But I wouldn’t do that.
Oliver
You know, if I wanted to spin the debate I would say Edwards just crushed him. He didn’t. It was a draw by most accounts, with the polling currently in Edwards’ favor. Seperate whether you agree with the argument versus whether you thought it was well-made. And I’ll remember your hatred of bipartisanship should the day come when Dems once again control a branch or two of the gov’t.
Sav
“with the polling currently in Edwards’ favor.”
Hard to go by the polling when the DNC tells a bunch of no-lifers to swamps polls and newspspers with pro-Dem responses.
John Cole
You are all missing my point about bipartisanship. What I think it means is either side watering down their principles. Since I think the Democrats are right on some issues, I don;t want them watering down theirprinciples there. Since I think the GOP is right on many issues,. I dont want them watering down their principles on that issue. This has NOTHING to do with who is incontrol of what.
Jeebus.
pleasewakeupy'all
Bi-partisan = compromise.
Two parties reach negotiated agreement. It’s what that whole checks and balances thing you may have read about is based on.
The current condition with one party’s control over all three branches screams out for a little dilution. Hopefully Kerry will deliver that formula.
Just Passing Thru
Trust these two men. They have plans that they will reveal when the sheeple that are too stupid to understand the nuances of the plans to bother detailing them in the election inevitably vote them into office.
The WOT is too expensive to fight. After all, our enemies only want our respect. Let’s buy off our enemies. This is the nuanced approach. This will work. We have a plan. Trust us.
Leaving more money in the marketplace and jump starting the economy was a mistake obvious to anyone. We’ll take that money back out of the marketplace and this will benefit the middle class. This is the nuanced approach. This will work. We have a plan. Trust us
America has no respect in the world any longer. The UN says so. France says so. We say so. We’ll sit down and meet with them, find out what they want, and give it to them. This will rekindle their respect for America. This is the nuanced approach. This will work. We have a plan. Trust us
The alliance that the current administration forged is made up of mercenary nations we coerced and bribed into supporting common interests. We’ll discard them in favor of new allies we can coerce and bribe into supporting interests they don’t share with us. This is the nuanced approach. This will work. We have a plan. Trust us
And the point behind the Left’s glee over claims that two GQ models won two debates on style sans substance is? In the long run? You know, in terms of the country’s welfare? A couple of fellows who believe nuance trumps common sense and is a suitable and even admirable substitution for character?
CadillaqJaq
What “Just Passing Thru” said…
And on this business of the VP debate ending up a draw, and this is not an original thought on my part: whenever a Dem or liberal leftist concedes a draw, it can be taken that they secretly believe they lost.
IXLNXS
Screw what any poll says. I’m one of those Bush hating Americans with eyes wide open. Edwards did not show as well and failed to nail several of Cheneys statements that any blogger slightly up on current events would have crucified him over. It showed he isn’t as informed as he could be. He also seemed to be mimicing Kerry, meaning they either were both sticking to a script, or again he only knows enough to parrot his boss. He looked younger and inexperienced and that displayed him as most possibly a very poor choice should Kerry fall ill or die.
From a Bush hating hippy hands down Cheney took the debate.
But I saw apologist aplenty after the Bush Kerry debates as well, sooooooooooooo don’t get your panties in a wad.
Far North
Cheney: “Senator, the first time I met you was when you walked on to this stage tonight.” Kinda put Edwards in his place, didn’t it.
Except it was a lie. Check it out, conservative, it was a lie.
More Cheney: [“I never claimed that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda]”
Opps, another flippin lie. Check this out, too, conservative, its another lie.
There were many more lies, too. Yea, Cheney “won”. As long as the truth doesn’t matter – and it doesn’t when it comes to the conservative defending this administration.
When it comes to Bush and Cheney, the conservative has nothing left but distortions and outright lies. Iraq can hardly get any worse, but all we need to do is “stay the course”. Never have so many been so thoroughly wrong in defending the performance and conduct of an American presidential administration.
It’s time to stop drinking the kool-aid, conservatives.
Yea, Cheney “won” if you count all the lies.
Just Passing Thru
“Kinda put Edwards in his place, didn’t it. Except it was a lie. Check it out, conservative, it was a lie”
Read it in the context of Cheney’s whole statement and then ask someone the definition of rhetorical license and what constitutes a lie. Check it out. Jackass.
“”I never claimed that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda]””
Provide the quote. Exactly. In context. Then try again to convince anyone outside the anointed left he lied about it. Check it out. Jackass.
“There were many more lies, too”. No, truth you’re not prepared to assimilate. But you’re welcome to provide your rationale for the claim jackass.
“When it comes to Bush and Cheney, the conservative has nothing left but distortions and outright lies.”
The purview of Kedwards and they are not conservatives, jackass.
“Iraq can hardly get any worse”
Says who? Kerry? The Iraqis see hope and progress. They said so. Where do you get off calling them liars? Just a habit, jackass?
“Never have so many been so thoroughly wrong in defending the performance and conduct of an American presidential administration. ”
No, never have so many let their hatred for an administration distort the difference between explaining to America what it will take to prevail against terrorism and pandering to that hatred to win an election.
I am comfortable with being a conservative supporting a conservative administration that is doing a good job safeguarding what is important to me.
I can not for the life of me fathom how you can be comfortable being such a jackass supporting two other jackasses without any agenda to safeguard what should be just as important to you.
Far North
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, jackass.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, jackass
My favorite line from Just Crapping Thru is the comment over:
Iraq can’t get any worse.
“Says who, Kerry? The Iraqis see hope and progress. They said so……”
To whom did they “say so, Crapping Thru?
I know, I know, FOX news, right. Yea, “poll after poll shows that the Iraqi people support freedom”. That one was Hannity.
Did you talk to the Iraqis, Crapping Thru?
And there was Crapping Thru, during the run up to war, during the war and after the war, there was Crapping Thru saying, “but what about the Iraqi people. I’m concerned about the Iraqi people.”
Hero to the Iraqi people, Crapping Thru.
No, of course not. Bush told you that the Iraqis say it’s getting better. That’s good enough for Crapping Thru.
We’ll be greeted as liberators, right? I know who attacked us. It was Osama Bin Laden. That’s why I invaded Iraq.
Mission accomplished.
Just Crapping Thru, think for yourself. Any self respecting American has to admit that the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration have thoroughly weakened our country.
Hell, pick a respectable conservative to support. McCain is a good man. And for shit’s sake, put down the kool-aid.
Far North
So, Just Crapping Through, did you catch how great things are for the Iraqis this week? A few more car bombings, hotel bombings, attacks on Iraqis waiting in line to sign up as police? Yea, the Iraqis should be happy.
Did you also catch the report that found that Iraq didn’t have nor were likely to develop any of the WMDs that Bush cited as the reason to go to war.
Gotta love the conservative response to Kerry’s plan to seek the help of our allies for the Iraq war. They whined that France and Germany won’t help no matter what. Well, Just Crapping Thru, just because it might be HARD WORK to obtain the help of our allies doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
It’s HARD WORK…..and Bush ain’t up to it.
Ricky
We tried.
They’ve said that if Kerry’s elected, they won’t send troops.
Period.
You can spin in one hand and shit in the other & see which one fills up first, but you still have nothing but spin and bullshit to show for it.
France & Germany weren’t getting on board, no matter what. Why you guys pimp that line when no one but the diehards swallow it (pun intended) is beyond me.
BTW, you guys may also want to check out the transcript of the Cheney-MTP interview……Chris Matthews was forced to show the entire thing when it became apparent that he cropped the context. It’s unbecoming to call people liars while you’re MoDowing their quotes.
Just Passing Thru
‘To whom did they “say so, Crapping Thru?’
A man of courage and conviction who gets up each morning with the reasonable expection that he’ll be dead before supper said so. A man with a good chance of being slaughtered for no other reason than taking a stand for a better future for his country came over here and said so. He said so to the responssible people representing our country in it’s great deliberative body and to every American. He said ‘ Thanks. It’s getting better because you’ve given us the help to make it happen. With your continued help, help we need until we can bear the burden ourselves, we’ll get there.’
Allawi didn’t say so to Kerry, jackass. Kerry didn’t make the event. He wasn’t in the chamber and in his seat to hear the man he would have to deal with were he to win the election. He had plenty of downside to bray about afterwards to the rest of the jackasses before waffling away from the implications of what he said – sorry, provided a nuanced explanation of why he said it.
‘Any self respecting American has to admit that the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration have thoroughly weakened our country.’
Oh? The number of people who think that is probably far, far less a number of jackasses than even I think, jackass. They’ll be plenty of people voting for Kerry because they vote the ticket or because they want a return to the halycon Clinton days or because they simply believe that Kerry might really have a plan. These are self-respecting democrats.
Then there are the jackasses lumbering out of the fever swamps and voting with your juvenile rationale about lies and deceptions guiding them. They provide no reason to support a man for president other than he panders to their hatreds and regurgitates their talking points for his own benefit. No other reason provided.
That’s all it takes for the ‘lies and deceptions’ crowd you run with, jackass. There are plenty of people supporting Kerry for principled reasons, but not your crowd. The leader of your crowd is anointed as such for no other reason than and only for as long as he can provide enough feedback to keep your hysterias peaking. Your crowd has no relevance except that provided by an empty suit who will whore for anyone who can get him what he wants.
And you talk about ‘self respect’ and thinking for yourself?
Just to acknowledge your other points – not because I think I’ll get a logical answer but because I am curious about how you’d spin it:
Do you think that Kerry’s and Edwards’ performance in the debates might have had anything to do with the particularly violent past week in Iraq you mentioned? Not the single cause for the increase but contributing to it? Do you think the people orchestrating that violence do not have TV, did not assimilate the debates, and did not get the message that increasing the violence is a way to help get a man elected who has made it clear – a relative term with Kerry – that he will deny Allawi and the Iraqis the help they need? That they might just see Kerry’s position on the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place as something other than pandering and react accordingly?
Actaully, I’m not interested in your answers even for their entertainment value.
Far North
Hey, Just Crapping Thru,
Love the way you associate Kerry and Edwards participation in the debates as inciting violence in Iraq. No, moron, that stuff was gonna happen in Iraq whether there were presidential debates in this country or not. When all you have is the record of Bush and Cheney, I understand that you have to blame Iraq violenc on Kerry and Edwards.
Listen to yourself, Crapping Thru, Kerry is giving aid and comfort to the enemy because he said Bush made mistakes. Gotta love the new century conservative, criticize Bush and you’re giving comfort to the enemy.
Remember, conservative, Osama bin Laden is the enemy.
Crapping Thru, I realize when you walk out of the house, birds are singing, there’s a rainbow with a pot of gold, everyone’s happy and everything Bush does is blessed by the Almighty. I know in Crapping Thru land, Iraqis name their newborns after GWB and God is going to smite down anyone anyone that dares vote against the “chosen one”.
Wake the hell up you fuckin’ idiot
Just Passing Thru
“Love the way you associate Kerry and Edwards participation in the debates as inciting violence in Iraq. No, moron, that stuff was gonna happen in Iraq whether there were presidential debates in this country or not. When all you have is the record of Bush and Cheney, I understand that you have to blame Iraq violenc on Kerry and Edwards.”
Read it again, jackass.
‘Listen to yourself, Crapping Thru, Kerry is giving aid and comfort to the enemy because he said Bush made mistakes.’
No, read it again, jackass. He is not saying Bush made mistakes. That would not be a problem. He is saying Iraq was a mistake – wrong war etc. That, jackass, is the problem.
Your facts are distorted, your conclusions juvenile, your feel for common sense truant. You have nothing but spin jackass. Bush lied, he distorted, Kerry is the paragon of truth and no self-respecting person would…. Kerry is a panderer. He has no position not for sale and the currency is the White House. He does not want to be president of this country. He wants to be President Kerry.
Slither back to DU, jackass.