THE "REAL" PRESIDENT GETS OVER ON THE TRIAL LAWYER
Edwards fails to expose character problems with the Veep

By CHARLES JAY, Personal Choice Party Presidential Nominee


If someone had crawled out from under a rock, and tuned in first to the September 30 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, then Tuesday's showdown between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, he/she would never, ever believe that it was in fact Bush who was Cheney's superior. In terms of composure, gravitas, delivery, content, substance, and ingenuity, there is absolutely no comparison between Bush and Cheney. 

In fact, if the President and his second in command were to engage in a public debate of their own, it might take on the character of one of those fights between Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, which is to say, it would be virtually over before it started.

So I have very little doubt as to who's REALLY in charge.

I don't know if, constitutionally speaking, that's the way it should be, but for some reason, Senator Edwards chose not to bring up the likelihood that Bush could very well be a puppet in his own Oval Office. 

When I listen to Bush talk, I feel as if I am riding in a car with a bad suspension over a three-deep rock bed. But Cheney is a real smoothie.

Unfortunately, trial lawyer Edwards, who did very little but repeat the buzzwords and ideas running mate Kerry used a week ago, didn't really bring the fight to Cheney. That may not affect the results of this election, but it did blow a golden opportunity for the Democrats to send an attack dog at the "shadow" commander-in-chief, and his illicit connections to some very questionable companies and their very questionable dealings in association with the unnecessary war in Iraq.

There's nothing defensible about having a financial interest in a company (Halliburton), including an outrageous retirement package and all those stock options, and holding the second highest-ranking office in the country while that same company has gouged the American taxpayer with no-bid labor and concession contracts that were awarded in the name of an effort Cheney championed to "privatize" military services. That the Halliburton deals represent anything close to the spirit of privatization is no better than an outright fraud. And Cheney needed to be called on it, because a man playing fast and loose with defense policy in that manner simply does not demonstrate the kind of honesty and accountability to occupy the Vice-Presidency.

Edwards didn't do it enough.

"Experience" was an interesting subject discussed in this debate, as it relates to Edwards' qualifications for being the Vice-President. Experience is one of the more overrated considerations in elections, because, more often than not, it has allowed politicians to more easily manipulate the system for their own advantage. All the years Cheney has spent in government, for example, have enabled him to develop the kind of "insider" contacts that made him so valuable to Halliburton, and now he's, for all intents and purposes, that company's operative in the executive branch. In that case, does experience benefit citizens, or benefit private interests? If experience spawns a bureaucracy that bilks taxpayers for the sake of its own self-perpetuation, what's the use? If the $570 billion national deficit, and $7 trillion national debt are the product of all this "experience", who needs it? Is say this not just because I come to the dance devoid of experience in government, but I'd rather have someone without experience, but with new ideas, who doesn't look at things as they are, but the way they should be, and who seeks to change the paradigm of government that has resulted in fiscal irresponsibility and the dominance of special interests. 

That having been said, Edwards is not that person, and of course, neither is Kerry. They're talking about more health care benefits, rolling back tax cuts for upper income individuals, and preserving Social Security. Cheney was talking about more money for schools and foreign aid. It just illustrates my point; with all this experience, these guys still don't seem to get it - excessive government spending is what is killing this country from the fiscal perspective. And as long as they don't understand it, and people like me DO, the barriers of "experience" don't mean a damn thing.

Whether Cheney told an out-and-out lie when denying that he ever suggested a direct link between Iraq and the bombings of 9/11 as a justification for the war is debatable. NBC thought it would play a little "gotcha" after the debate by digging up a video clip of Cheney on "Meet The Press", but it was taken out of context. 

What's pertinent, however, is not the semantics. It's the backpedaling of Cheney, seemingly away from the idea that the administration ever meant to promote that link. These days, however, those guys don't have any choice, because it has come to light that not only did Saddam Hussein not have any definable ties to Al Queda, and no weapons of mass destruction, but as it turns out, no capability in that regard for over a decade. Misrepresentations have been characteristic of this crew, literally from the start. And for Edwards not to highlight that when the Bush/Cheney ticket keeps talking about "flip-flops" on the part of Kerry was almost negligent.

The Bush administration, in point of fact, continued to change its rationale for invading Iraq, trying another explanation after each one failed. Fact is, they couldn't explain their way out of a paper bag with any kind of credibility. What it really amounts to is that over a thousand Americans and over 20,000 innocent Iraqis have died because (a) President Bush, for personal reasons, had every intention of attacking Iraq from his first day in office, and (b) There are oil profits to be made, and friends of both Bush and Cheney who need to be enriched. A lot of Americans feel that way, and it would have been a ballsy move if Edwards had stepped forward with some emotion and suggested just that. 

I really don't understand why Cheney lied when he said he had never met John Edwards before in his life. In fact, he had - and that was substantiated during the post-debate "spin". But for Cheney, who seems to have a healthy disregard for the truth, it didn't matter, because that lie was strictly for effect. If you can blatantly misrepresent the facts and still get away with it, you are landing an overhand right without having to take a counter shot. In baseball parlance, I guess you would call that an unearned run, because I don't like to give liars much credit.

Cheney appears to be one of those steely-eyed, cold-blooded types, Machiavellian in his own way; not too concerned with the moral consequences of his actions, but just that the objective is accomplished. For a guy who has never spent a day in uniform, he shows an odd lack of conscience about sending soldiers out to die without rhyme or reason. His is the sensibility that sees nothing wrong in the conflict of interest (or, at the very least, the appearance thereof) in earning money from a Halliburton retirement package, then standing by and watching while they get fat with their no-bid contracts. As far as he's concerned, it's perfectly alright to go on a duck-hunting trip with the Chief Justice, while a case involving him is sitting before the Supreme Court. Why didn't Edwards question him about that?

It's easy to say it from here, but I certainly would have. To me, policy matters are secondary when examining Cheney; honesty and integrity are the primary issues. This is a man who seems to have no moral compass, no sense of right and wrong, no concerns other than to serve a small group of special interests. And he would much rather operate in "cloak-and-dagger" fashion than with any kind of transparency. 

Is he corrupt? Well, let's put it this way - he is of a corrupted mindset; one in which the perception is that government works for him, rather than the other way around. 

And as long as such a mindset is tolerated, third parties in America are going to have an uphill battle converting voters.