Cheney Outshines Edwards; North Korea Outshines Iraq
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (10/08/04)
THIS IS WHAT happens when you choose your running-mate solely on the basis of his superior use of hairspray.
Several days ago I was taking advantage of Al Gore’s best and most well-known invention, the world-renowned “Internet,” when I came across a column he’d written for The New York Times. (Someday, when I serve as vice president under an impeached, disbarred miscreant and then run a miserable presidential campaign which I lose to a virtually unknown politician from a dusty state, I look forward to penning articles for The Times.)
Gore begins by making excuses for Kerry. Apparently the Senator’s an indecisive snob because of “media clutter,” and “the dominance of attack advertisements.” (And all this time I thought it was because he’s a compulsive liar with a Vietnam complex!)
One can’t be sure whether Kerry took Gore’s advice, but he certainly took somebody’s. All of his unbearable qualities were somewhat muted during the first debate, and he was able to supply his supporters with a few drops of much-needed hope. Indeed, if you are completely ignorant of the world and its problems, you surely thought the Senator won handily. If, however, you’re cognizant of the complexities of foreign policy, you preferred Bush.
Absolutely everyone must concede that Cheney beat Edwards—primarily because Cheney seemed to be of legal driving age—but a look at Democrats’ reaction to the Bush-Kerry debut is necessary.
Eleanor Clift took the time-tested route of calling Bush dumb, noting that he “is incapable of conceptual thinking….” An evidently popular newspaper editorial picked on, of all things, Bush’s facial expressions. His policies are bad, the column said, and his visage “sometimes seemed downright petulant….” My basic reaction to the angry cries about Bush’s countenance is to note that it’s nice to live in an America where the only part of the president’s anatomy that needs to be spoken of is his face.
Most interesting about the debate is that the biggest question of the day, Iraq, actually took a backseat to the more complicated issue of North Korea. Here Bush was especially persuasive. How, he wondered, could Kerry base his campaign on wooing “the allies” to our side, but then seek to dissolve multilateral talks with the Communists?
I mean, really, Senator: How do you expect to push North Korea toward disarmament if China isn’t involved? And wouldn’t it be nice if Russia, Japan, and South Korea were also included? If we needed France and Germany in order to go to war in Iraq, why don’t we need the aforesaid countries in order to engage in diplomatic relations with North Korea? Paris is a lot farther from Baghdad than Seoul is from Pyongyang.
Also, unlike Iraq, North Korea has nukes. (In reverence to Bush’s recovering predecessor, I won’t mention that this is purely due to the Clinton-Albright State Department.) Iraq was always a threat under Saddam, but never did it have the capability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against American cities. Kim Jong Il, who, lets face it, even looks crazy, does.
Clinton was consistently wrong about North Korea, Bush has been consistently right, and Kerry has been totally inconsistent. For Sen. Edwards to call Kerry “consistent” on any issue is outrageous.
I always expected Cheney to win because he’s a serious statesman and Edwards is a sputtering little boy. But I also anticipated a better showing on Edwards’ part. He may use junk science to win cases, but surely he once possessed greater charisma than he exhibited Tuesday night. Either age has defeated him, or he had the fortune of dealing with the dumbest juries ever assembled.
Paul Krugman recently wrote that Edwards’ “mission” in the debate was “to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.” Apparently, as with his duty to actually visit the Senate on occasion, Edwards didn’t quite come through. Krugman got the opposite of his fantasy. Bush looks tough, if a little peevish, and Cheney looks smart and savvy. Kerry and Edwards, alas, look like a couple of opportunists who, with two dozen days to go, lack the slightest idea of how to save their sinking ship.
I personally would demand a coalition of allies to deliver lifejackets, and some caviar.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
